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

Annotations already declare the full safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description usefully adds that it returns code without executing API calls, clarifying this is pure generation, but offers nothing on output shape or limits.

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 purpose, then selection parameters, coverage, the no-execution constraint, and finally sibling routing. Four sentences with no padding; each adds distinct information.

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 no explanation, and annotations cover the safety profile. The only real gap is the four context parameters (email, campaignId, referredBy, participantIdOrEmail) that an agent gets no guidance on anywhere.

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 0%, so the description must carry the load. It explains `language`, `workflow`, their `all` defaults, and what the workflow values cover, but leaves `email`, `campaignId`, `referredBy`, and `participantIdOrEmail` entirely undocumented in both schema and description.

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?

Specific verb (Generate) plus resource (Markdown code examples for official backend REST API libraries) with the target languages enumerated. It clearly separates itself from snippet-producing siblings by naming backend REST libraries versus browser/native SDKs.

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?

Gives explicit routing conditions: use `growsurf_client_snippets` for browser JavaScript and `growsurf_mobile_sdk_guide` for native/React Native setup. It also states the tool returns code without executing API calls, so there is no ambiguity about side effects.

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