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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, which align with the description's claim of just returning script source. The description adds behavioral detail about the optional pre-filling of the script with provided parameters, and describes the return content (script source + setup snippet). This goes beyond annotations without contradiction.

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 description is a single, well-structured paragraph that front-loads the core purpose, then explains the return value and parameter usage. Every sentence adds value, with no redundancy or fluff.

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 no output schema, the description fully specifies what the tool returns (script source and setup snippet). It also explains the optional pre-fill behavior and all parameters are optional, so the description covers everything an agent needs to know to invoke and use the 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 coverage is 100%, so each parameter already has a description. The tool description adds the crucial context that these parameters are used to pre-fill the returned script, explaining their role beyond mere input fields. This elevates the semantics above the schema baseline.

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 states the tool retrieves the killcord script, a dead-man's switch for Anthropic API spend. It is distinct from all siblings, which focus on other domains, and the specific verb+resource combination (get killcord script) is unambiguous.

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 conveys the intended use case: stopping a runaway agent loop, and explicitly contrasts it with alerting. While it doesn't name a specific alternative tool, the sibling list shows no similar tool, so the context is sufficient. It lacks explicit 'when not to use' guidance but the purpose is clear enough.

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