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

The readOnlyHint annotation makes the non-destructive nature explicit, and the description aligns with this by only mentioning discovery and reading operations. The contract parameter's description ('return the complete contract with no operation performed') adds transparency about a special no-op mode. No hidden side effects are indicated, and there is no contradiction with the 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 tool description is a single clear sentence, and the parameter descriptions are concise yet informative. There is no redundant or extraneous text. The structure is clean and easy to parse, with each parameter receiving a focused explanation.

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 and schema provide enough context to understand the tool's capabilities, including the available actions and categories. However, there is no output schema or explicit mention of the return format, which could leave some uncertainty about the exact response structure. For a read-only documentation tool, this is a minor gap rather than a critical omission.

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?

Every parameter is described in detail within the schema, including enum values, conditions, and current category slugs. The action description clearly explains the three possible values and their effects, and the contract parameter is explained with its no-op behavior. This goes well beyond minimal parameter names and provides actionable semantics.

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 the tool's purpose: discovering and reading user or assistant documentation. The resource ('manual') and verbs ('discover', 'read') are explicit, and the title reinforces this. It could be slightly more specific about the distinction between 'user' and 'assistant' documentation, but the core purpose is unambiguous.

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 implies usage through the action parameter ('categories', 'index', 'read') and the category values ('manual', 'ai-manual'), giving some contextual guidance. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or mention any exclusions. The guidance is implied rather than directly stated.

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