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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is settled. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that by enumerating what the returned guide contains, helping the agent understand what it will receive and why it matters. No contradictions 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?

Two sentences, no filler, with the key action and timing front-loaded. Every phrase earns its place.

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 read-only, idempotent, no-output-schema tool with three optional parameters, this description is complete. It tells the agent when to call, what the response contains, and why the call matters, leaving no critical gap.

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 the input schema already documents all three optional parameters. The description does not add parameter-level detail, but it does orient the agent toward using app_id and sections in the context of learning the platform. 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('Return a machine-readable Fine Structure / FSe2 guide') and clearly differentiates this tool from its many siblings by positioning it as the session-start onboarding resource. The list of covered topics (app files, entities, workflows, publishing, etc.) makes its scope unmistakable.

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 gives an explicit invocation context: 'Call this at the start of an MCP session.' It does not name alternatives or exclusions, but the session-start guidance is clear enough to route an agent to this tool over the more specialized sibling tools like get_recommended_workflow or get_app_detail.

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