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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds real value: the server-side refusal of mutating actions and the replay semantics keyed to client_request_id (a retry returns the recorded action rather than rerunning it).

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 sentences, front-loaded with what the tool does and ending with the idempotency contract. The middle sentence is a long enumeration, but every clause carries information and nothing is padding.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no prose. For a generic action dispatcher the description covers behavior, scope and idempotency adequately; the only meaningful omission is how an agent should discover or validate the action names it must pass.

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 75% and the description mostly restates the schema's framing of "action by name with its arguments." It adds no guidance on what valid registry action names look like or where to obtain them, which is the central ambiguity for this dispatcher-style tool.

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 (runs/returns) and resource (one read-only action from Xorventa's account API), and enumerates the data domains covered (chat windows, Business Facts, settings, drafts, posts, SEO audits, activity). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like xora_action_status and xora_action_details.

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 a clear when-to-use condition (read-only data retrieval) and an explicit exclusion ("refuses any action that changes something"), which routes write intents to siblings like xora_publish_or_send, xora_delete or xora_change_settings. It does not, however, name those alternatives or point to xora_capabilities for discovering valid action names.

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