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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value by characterizing what each topic actually returns (API surface, finished examples, craft rules, review loop) — effectively standing in for the absent output schema. It stops short of saying what happens with an unrecognized topic or how large the returned docs are.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose and the no-topic default, and every clause names a distinct topic with its payload, so there is little padding. The downside is structure: the whole thing is one run-on paragraph whose topic lists would read far better as bullets, and the topic names duplicate the schema enum.

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 two-parameter documentation lookup with no output schema, the description supplies exactly what an agent needs: the topic vocabulary, the meaning of each value, and the ordering rules between them. Nothing required to call it correctly is missing.

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% and the topic values are already enumerated there, so the baseline would be 3. The description earns above baseline by explaining what each enumerated value contains and how the values relate ('motion-craft ... a companion to motion'), which the bare enum cannot convey. The token parameter is left entirely to the schema, which documents it adequately.

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 ('Returns Frapea's editing documentation for a topic') and immediately scopes what the no-topic default yields. No sibling tool offers documentation lookup, so there is no ambiguity about which tool to call for guidance.

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?

Goes well beyond 'use this for docs': it names explicit ordering constraints ('read before create_motion_composition', 'core ... read first') and sequencing ('then the format you are making'), and it routes between the motion and craft families. An agent can pick a topic and a reading order without opening anything else.

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