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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower; the description still adds meaningful traits: the response is a catalog JSON with payloads at `operations[*].requestBodyExamples[name].value`, and that this tier carries the heavy payloads. It does not discuss auth or account/workspace selection, but the schema covers those.

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?

Front-loads the purpose and the trigger condition, then parameter guidance, then the endpoint tier explanation. Dense and mostly earning its place, though the three-tier catalog recap at the end is slightly verbose for a tool the agent has probably already reasoned about.

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 five parameters, no output schema, and no truncation hints, the description supplies the missing return-shape information (the `operations[*].requestBodyExamples[name].value` path) and the narrowing strategy. Nothing needed to invoke it correctly is absent.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3; the description goes further by giving concrete example values for tag ('Wiki Pages (Lite)'), operationId ('createPage'), and name ('full', 'full-tiptap') and explaining where those names come from (the per-tag detail response). This meaningfully supplements the schema.

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 specific verb and resource ('Fetch the request/response example payloads ... for a Dutify API resource tag') and explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling catalog tools get_api_catalog (tag list) and the per-tag detail endpoint, naming which tier it calls. An agent can tell exactly what this returns versus its neighbors.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger condition ('when you're about to write rich content via a tool that accepts a TipTap content parameter, e.g. wiki_create_page'), names the lighter alternatives and when to use them, and explains how to narrow with operationId/name to avoid paying tokens for unused examples.

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