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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds useful context by stating 'no project needed' and 'on demand', indicating this is a safe, immediate help lookup with no side effects. It does not add details about limitations or return format, but for a zero-parameter help tool, this is sufficient.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and uses compact examples. Every word earns its place, with no repetition or filler.

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 simple, zero-parameter help tool with read-only annotation, the description is complete: it states what it does, when to use it, and provides a list of covered topics. No output schema exists, but the return value is implicitly help content, which needs no further explanation.

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 has zero parameters, so the schema fully covers parameters (100% coverage). The description does not need to explain parameter semantics, and the baseline for 0 params is 4, which is appropriate here.

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 it provides on-demand Forge how-to content, listing specific topics like propose→adopt and Balance Lab formats. It also differentiates itself from sibling tools by noting 'no project needed', making its scope distinct from project-specific get_* 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?

The phrase 'Call when unsure' explicitly tells the agent when to use this tool. The note 'no project needed' implies it is not for project-specific queries, but no alternative tool is named explicitly, so it falls just short of a perfect score.

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