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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and largely does: it discloses the return shape (ranked markdown chunks with source files), the requires_expanded flagging of pulled-in atoms, and graceful degradation to ezt://guidance/... resources. It does not state auth needs, rate limits, or retrieval latency.

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 purpose, then usage trigger, then return behavior, then fallback, then examples. Dense but every sentence carries information; the trailing example list is the only part that could be trimmed.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description still adds the degradation and requires_expanded behaviors. However, for a four-parameter search tool with 0% schema coverage, the complete absence of parameter semantics leaves a real gap an agent must guess through.

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 0% across four parameters (query, tags, type, max_results), so the description must compensate and does not. It never explains what tags/type filter on, what values are valid, or how max_results affects ranking/expansion.

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 ('Semantic search over the EZT MCP Expert Pack') plus the content types it covers (workflow guidance, concepts, interfaces, common mistakes). An agent can distinguish it from ep_graph_traverse, ep_list_topics, and get_guidance without opening any schema.

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?

Explicit 'When' clause enumerates triggering situations (unsure which tool/order, hit an error, need domain context) and gives three concrete example queries. It names the fallback resources on unavailability, but does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling advisory tools like workflow_advisor or get_guidance.

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