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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by specifying the breadth of information returned ('current limits, terms, retention, pricing, and integration URLs'), clarifying what the agent can expect beyond a generic 'service info' label.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence lists the distinct information categories with no filler or redundancy. Every word contributes meaning, and the structure makes scanning easy.

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?

Given zero parameters, an output schema that handles return values, and no overlapping sibling tools, the description is fully sufficient. It names the exact scope of the service information, leaving no obvious operational gap.

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, which sets the baseline at 4. There is nothing the description needs to explain about input semantics; the empty schema already confirms no arguments are required.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('Scribble service info'), then enumerates the exact content domains: limits, terms, retention, pricing, and integration URLs. This clearly differentiates it from the sibling animation-management 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 context makes the use case obvious: this is the only service-info tool among animation-focused siblings, so there is no ambiguity about when to call it. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but none are needed given the unique purpose.

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