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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds genuine value beyond them: it discloses that no account or project access is required and that output matches the /features surface, which helps the agent reason about auth and result parity. Return shape is left to the output 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?

Two tight sentences: capability inventory first, then the usage trigger and access constraint. Every clause carries information an agent needs; nothing is redundant with the name or the annotations.

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 read-only inventory tool with an output schema and full parameter coverage, the description supplies the remaining unknowns: what is included (pricing, limitations, docs links), the intended question type, and the no-auth requirement. Nothing needed to invoke it 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the single optional 'category' enum is fully documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description never mentions that results can be scoped by category or that omitting it returns everything, adding nothing 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 ('Read') and resource ('Hyperwave's current app features') and enumerates the exact contents returned: workflows, pricing/availability, limitations, and documentation links. None of the sibling tools (session/render/export utilities) overlap, so an agent can select this immediately for product-inventory questions.

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?

'Use this for product capability questions and comparisons' gives a clear positive trigger, and 'No account or project access' rules out a class of mistaken invocations. No explicit when-not or named alternative is needed here because no sibling covers this territory, but the guidance is not fully exhaustive.

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