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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses that the vocabulary is versioned and append-only, which meaningfully informs an agent that new entries may appear and existing ones are not replaced. It does not describe response shape, but for a read-only vocabulary lookup that is acceptable.

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 compact, front-loaded with the resource definition, and every phrase earns its place. The second sentence adds behavioral and usage guidance without padding.

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?

Given a single optional parameter, no output schema, and a safe read-only annotation, the description gives enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool appropriately. It does not spell out the exact response fields, but the tagging instruction implies the needed output well enough for this simple retrieval tool.

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?

The only parameter, space_id, is fully described in the schema with behavior for defaults and overrides, and schema coverage is 100%. The description itself adds nothing about parameters, but the schema already carries that burden.

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 identifies the resource: the closed creative vocabulary used by the angle plane, listing angle types, concept attributes, and business categories. It is specific enough to distinguish from tools like get_angle or list_angles, though it phrases the purpose as a definition rather than an explicit 'returns/gets' statement.

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 gives a concrete usage rule: tag with exact ids from this vocabulary and never use free text. It does not name sibling alternatives or state explicitly when not to use the tool, but the tagging instruction makes the practical context clear.

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