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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description still earns credit by disclosing a non-obvious output behavior: numbers that exceed JavaScript number precision are returned as original digits with a precision warning, which is exactly the kind of quirk an agent would otherwise be surprised by.

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 filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded ahead of the precision caveat. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be re-explained, and the annotations cover safety. The description is nearly complete; it only omits error behavior for malformed JSONPath and any note on the limit parameter's interaction with the returned paths.

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 json, query, and limit with defaults and bounds. The description adds no syntax, format, or default information beyond the schema, 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?

Names a specific verb (evaluate) and resource (JSONPath Plus query against a JSON document) and states the shape of the result (matches with their paths). This clearly separates it from siblings like validate_json_schema, format_json, and convert_json_to_types, which share the JSON domain but do different work.

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 never says when to reach for this tool versus alternatives such as format_json, validate_json_schema, or convert_json_to_types, nor what preconditions exist (must the document already be valid JSON?). Only the schema's example query hints at usage, and that is structured-field content rather than description guidance.

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