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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful scope context, characterizing the payload as documented metadata (sources, connection requirements, limitations) rather than live operational data, which helps an agent distinguish this from an action tool.

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 sentences, zero redundancy: the positive trigger and payload are front-loaded, and the exclusion follows immediately. Every clause 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?

For a one-parameter read tool with annotations covering safety and an output schema covering return values, the description supplies exactly what structured fields cannot: when to call it, when not to, and what kind of information it yields.

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 'id' parameter has 0% schema description coverage, so the description carries the burden. It does so by specifying that the ID is a 'Detextit listing ID', which tells the agent where to source the value and what namespace it belongs to, though it gives no format guidance.

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 names a specific resource (a Detextit catalog listing, keyed by ID) and enumerates what it returns: documented capabilities, provider sources, connection requirements, and limitations. It implies but never names its sibling search_capabilities, so sibling differentiation is inferred from the ID-based lookup rather than stated.

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?

Explicit trigger given ('when you have a Detextit listing ID and need its full documented capabilities') plus two negative exclusions (private task records, operating the provider). The alternative tool for the non-lookup case is not named, so the routing is clear but not fully complete.

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