Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety and side-effect profile is covered. The description adds that results carry last-checked dates and fields like pricing-as-of-date, platforms, and MCP support, but says nothing about rate limits, pagination, or freshness policy. Adds modest context beyond annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single sentence with the core purpose front-loaded and no filler. The dense category list is long but each item earns its place by mapping to the section enum.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description does the necessary work of describing the return content (what each resource entry contains). The main gap is absence of any routing guidance relative to sibling retrieval tools, but nothing essential to invoking it correctly is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so both token and section are already documented in the schema, including the enum of section values. The description only restates 'Optional section id', adding no syntax or semantics beyond the structured fields. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a retrieval tool for 'checked external resources' and enumerates the resource categories it covers (AI providers/apps, local models, MCP/agent building, docs, safety, research, learning), which distinguishes it from siblings like get_pricing and list_courses. The verb is only implied by 'get', but the resource scope is concrete.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no statement of when to call this versus alternatives such as get_pricing, latest_news, or search. The only hint is that a section may be requested, which implies filtering but not selection among tools. No exclusions or prerequisites are given.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.