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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, which cover safety and open-world expectations. The description adds context on the input ('from a prior result') but doesn't disclose details like how similarity is computed or result ordering, though given the annotations the description does not contradict them and provides some added value.

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 two sentences with no fluff. It front-loads the core purpose and then gives a concrete use case. Every word 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?

The tool is simple (2 params, no output schema) and the annotations provide some context, so the description is adequate. However, it lacks details on the output format (e.g., a list of frames) or how the 'similarity' is determined, which could be useful for an agent but is not strictly required.

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 0% and there are only two simple parameters (frameId and limit). The description does not elaborate on the semantics of these parameters beyond what schema provides (string id, number limit with bounds), but with such simple parameters the baseline of 3 is reasonable.

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 the tool finds frames similar to a given frame id and the use case of pulling more references, which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like search_frames or get_frame_details. However, it could be more explicit about the 'visually/semantically' modes but it is still clear.

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 a usage hint ('from a prior result', 'shortlisted') but does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention alternatives. It implies the tool is for extending a set of references, which is somewhat useful but could be more directive.

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