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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It mentions the requirement for an API key with read scope, lists the error case NOT_FOUND for unknown slugs, and includes a concrete return example. This gives a good sense of behavior, though it does not discuss rate limits or pagination, which are not critical for a simple list operation.

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 well-structured and concise. It starts with the primary purpose, then adds supplementary details, followed by required scope, arguments, return format, and errors. Every sentence provides necessary information without any redundancy or fluff.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is complete. It explains the return values with a concrete example and lists possible errors. The description fully equips an agent to invoke the tool and interpret the result without needing additional context.

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 input schema has one required parameter 'slug' with no description, so coverage is 0%. The description adds 'slug: Site identifier', which provides basic meaning beyond the param name. Since there is only one parameter and its purpose is clear, this compensation is sufficient, though minimal.

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 lists AI modules and their enabled/disabled state for a site. It also mentions it returns the list of modules available for the site's plan, which distinguishes it from similar list tools like list_plugins or list_apps. The verb 'List' and resource 'AI modules' are specific and unambiguous.

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?

The description provides clear context on what the tool does and what it returns, implying when to use it (when needing module states or plan-available modules). However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the sibling list tools are distinct enough that the purpose is clear without needing exclusions.

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