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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds useful behavioral context by describing what is returned (method, group, path, summary) and that filtering is case-insensitive, though it does not mention pagination or result limits.

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?

Three short sentences with zero waste. The core purpose and return fields are front-loaded, and the routing guidance follows immediately.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by naming the returned fields. Combined with the clear routing to the read/write execution siblings, an agent has everything needed to call this discovery tool correctly.

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 the schema already documents the single 'search' parameter including case-insensitivity and match targets. The description only says 'search term', adding no syntax, format, or matching detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource ('List known DirectIQ API operations') and enumerates the returned fields (HTTP method, API group, path, summary). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling execution tools by naming directiq_read_request and directiq_write_request.

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?

Explicitly says to call GET operations with directiq_read_request and POST/PUT/PATCH/DELETE operations with directiq_write_request, which is exactly the routing decision an agent needs. The optional 'search' filter is described as an alternative narrowing path.

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