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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds detailed behavioral context: what data is returned (action input fields, trigger config, setup fields, references to installed actions), error handling for unknown moduleKey, and the fact that it is read-only. 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?

The description is concise at four sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose. Each sentence adds value: main functionality, read-only hint, workflow steps, and error behavior. No redundant or unnecessary information.

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?

The description provides a high-level overview of the return data (action input fields, trigger config, setup fields, references to installed actions) and error handling. With no output schema, this is reasonably complete, though a more detailed breakdown of the success response structure would improve completeness.

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 all three parameters already have clear descriptions in the schema. The description does not add significant additional semantics beyond those descriptions; it only provides workflow context. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema already does the heavy lifting.

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 that the tool returns 'everything needed to use one module' including action input fields, trigger configuration, manual setup fields, and references to installed actions. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_module_catalog (which returns a list of modules) and install_module, and explicitly advises calling get_module_catalog first and calling this tool again after install_module.

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 explicit guidance: 'Call get_module_catalog first to obtain moduleKey' and 'call this again after install_module to read the installed action references.' It also explains the behavior when moduleKey is unknown (returns error with availableModules) and when to omit moduleVersion (to resolve installed version). No ambiguous or missing guidance.

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