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

The description reveals the content scope ('this product and shared service information only') and the readOnlyHint annotation covers safety. It does not explicitly state the output format beyond the phrase 'OpenAPI manifest,' which is a minor gap.

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 concise sentences immediately identify the tool's purpose and content scope. It is properly front-loaded and has no unnecessary detail.

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, single-parameter tool, the definition plus schema is enough to call it correctly. It could be more explicit about the exact response shape, but an OpenAPI manifest is a well-known format and no output schema exists to fill that 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 single optional parameter is already described in the JSON schema ('absolute origin to render into the manifest's servers block'), so the description adds no new parameter guidance, but the schema fully compensates.

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 identifies what is being retrieved: an OpenAPI manifest for Compass by 402rates, and states what it contains. It is concise and unambiguous, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_capabilities or find_resource. The description states what the tool returns but not when an agent should choose it.

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