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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: dependency expansion details, the implementation-contract usage, and confirmation that it is a request for information. No contradiction with 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?

The description is front-loaded and clear but contains redundancy: 'Call get_appdeploy_sdk_reference once per top-level SDK feature' and 'Request one top-level SDK feature per call' are duplicative, and the dependency expansion is repeated in the schema. It is appropriately sized but not tightly written.

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?

With a single enum parameter and read-only annotations, the description covers purpose, usage constraints, dependency expansion, and implementation-contract intent. No output schema exists, but the return types ('types, rules, examples') are described sufficiently for the tool's role.

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?

The schema's feature parameter has extensive per-enum-value descriptions and scenario guidance, covering 100% of parameter semantics. The tool description largely duplicates the calling convention and dependency expansion already present in the schema, adding no additional parameter-specific meaning beyond the baseline.

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?

The description clearly states the tool returns types, rules, and examples for one requested SDK feature plus its dependencies, and frames it as an implementation contract. This distinguishes it from sibling read tools like get_app_template or get_deploy_instructions by its specific function.

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?

Provides explicit calling conventions: one top-level feature per call, exactly one enum value, no separate dependency requests, and use the highest-level feature. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the contextual guidance is strong enough for an agent to know how to use it correctly.

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