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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that: the response includes a readable `body_text` while raw editor HTML is deliberately withheld, and the content is curated rather than scraped — both facts an agent needs to interpret results correctly.

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 content description is front-loaded, and the second sentence about body_text versus raw HTML is informative rather than filler. The parenthetical about 'hundreds of bytes of `<p style=...>`' is slightly verbose but justifies the design decision, so it mostly earns its place.

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?

With an output schema present, the description need not enumerate return fields, and it appropriately highlights only the notable one (`body_text`). Parameters are fully documented in the schema. The remaining minor gap is the absence of explicit routing to or from `list_explainers` in the description text.

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%, so `id`, `country_id`, and `country_code` are fully documented in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 states specifically what is returned: the full editorial explainer covering what the thing is, how it works, and who regulates it, authored by Dapper's editorial team. The word 'full' implicitly contrasts with the truncated list view, though no sibling tool is named directly in the description. An agent can identify the resource and content type without opening the schema.

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 description gives citation/attribution guidance ('cite it as Dapper's own explainer rather than as a primary source'), which is useful but is about how to present results, not when to call this tool versus alternatives. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance; the id source ('from list_explainers') appears only in the schema.

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