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

Beyond the readOnly/openWorld annotations, it discloses the auth requirement ("Requires Authorization: Bearer <JWT>"), the cost implication ("Every run bills you"), and the conditional shape of locked entries (buy_url present, no run call). These are real behavioral facts an agent needs and cannot get from the annotations or the empty schema.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the resource identity, then the return shape, then the two constraints (billing, auth). The parenthetical access-state list is compact and every sentence carries information that is nowhere else in the definition.

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 parameters, no output schema, and annotations already covering the safety profile, the description fully carries the remaining burden: what comes back, how locked entries differ, what running costs, and what credential is needed. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The description's detail about access states and run calls describes the response rather than inputs, which is useful but not a parameter concern.

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 names a concrete resource and scope: "Your Rokha's add-ons: every rig or skill you attached." That clearly separates it from the catalog/add/remove siblings by the possessive "your," though it never names those siblings explicitly, so the differentiation is implicit rather than stated.

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?

Usage is implied (call this to see what you already own and what each item can do) but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or routing guidance toward rokha_addons_catalog, rokha_addon_add, or rokha_addon_remove. An agent can infer intent but must guess at the boundaries.

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