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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so "Read only" is partly redundant, but the description adds genuinely new behavior: each result carries per-company installation status and which apps are connected, and the agent is forbidden from installing. It stops short of describing result volume, pagination, or what happens when filters match nothing.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with the definition and filters, then the next-step sequence, then the escape hatch, then the constraint. No sentence is filler, and the ordering matches the order in which an agent needs the 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?

With no output schema, the description supplies the return shape (per-item install status and connected apps), and with three undocumented parameters it supplies their intent. Purpose, routing to siblings, next steps, and the install prohibition are all present, leaving no decision an agent must make on inference alone.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it does map all three parameters to meaning (category, industry, the apps a company uses). However, it adds no format guidance beyond that — the apps parameter is an array of up to 20 strings with no indication of whether values are app names, slugs, or IDs, and category/industry value vocabularies remain unstated.

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 ("List ready-made presetups") and even defines the concept as "a skill, and sometimes workflows, that a person can activate." The filtering scope (category, industry, apps) is named up front, so an agent can distinguish this from presetup_find, presetup_search, and presetup_get without opening a 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?

Gives an explicit forward path ("read one with presetup_get, then call propose_presetups") and an explicit alternative branch ("To send the person to the Spaces setup page instead, use presetup_search and presetup_onboarding_link"). It also states a hard prohibition — "Never install a presetup yourself" — which rules out presetup_install_inactive as a default move.

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