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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds the 'hydrate' behavior (fetching and enriching content) and the verbose parameter's effect (including PR diffs and Jira comments). It doesn't mention rate limits or failure modes, but the annotations cover the safety profile.

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 well-structured with a clear opening sentence and a bulleted list of supported URL patterns. It's a bit long but every sentence earns its place by providing specific URL examples. The front-loaded purpose statement helps the agent quickly understand the tool.

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?

The description is complete for a read-only URL hydration tool. It covers supported URL patterns, input format, and the verbose option. The output schema exists, so return values are documented elsewhere. It could mention what happens with unsupported URLs, but that's a minor gap.

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 both parameters. The description adds the 'one per line' format for urls and the verbose parameter's effect (PR diffs, Jira comments), which is useful. However, it doesn't add much beyond what the schema already says, 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Retrieve and hydrate content from supported URLs.' It specifies the exact URL patterns supported (GitHub, Notion, Unblocked) and the input format (one URL per line). This distinguishes it from siblings like context_get_rules and context_research, which are about rules and research respectively.

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 provides clear usage context: it lists supported URL patterns and the input format. It doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives, but the supported URL patterns and the sibling names (context_get_rules, context_research) make the use case clear. It could be improved by explicitly saying 'use this for URL content, not for rules or research.'

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