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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, non-destructive, and non-idempotent behavior. The description adds important context beyond annotations: calculators only compute, krijo-cv saves a CV draft for 60 minutes behind a one-time link, and unsupported slugs return only a shareable page URL.

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 four tight sentences. The core run-and-return behavior is front-loaded, followed by exceptions and side-effect details, with no filler or repetition.

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?

For a dynamic wrapper with nested input and no output schema, it explains the result (tool output plus page link), fallback URL-only behavior, regional requirements, and CV draft lifetime. This is sufficient for correct invocation.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds cross-tool meaning for slug (from search_tools, callable:true), input (same fields as the corresponding named tool), and region (required for regional tools), though it adds little for locale beyond the schema.

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 ('Run') and resource ('a tool by slug'), identifies the slug source as search_tools with callable:true, and names sibling equivalents: paga-neto/calculate_net_salary and krijo-cv/create_cv. This clearly distinguishes run_tool from search_tools and the named tools.

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?

Explicitly says to use slugs returned by search_tools that are callable:true, notes that paga-neto and krijo-cv mirror the named tools, and states that any other slug only returns a page URL. It also notes regional tools require region, covering when to use it and what happens otherwise.

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