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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. Beyond that, the description discloses real behavioral traits: results are ranked by query proximity, the returned records extend a known 'trunk' schema, and it notes a public alternative access path (GET /conventions).

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?

It is appropriately short and front-loads the resource, but the telegraphic fragments ('Registered conventions: the headers listings fill in') and heavy parentheticals make the structure choppy and slightly hard to parse on first read.

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?

With no output schema, the description steps in to sketch the return shape (records extending name/description/need/can/contact plus 5-9 dimensions) and the ordering behavior. That is sufficient for a read-only list tool, though pagination or result limits are not mentioned.

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%, so both parameters (query, api_token) are already documented in the schema. The description adds an example query ('dog walking') that mirrors the schema's own example, so it contributes little beyond the baseline when the schema carries the load.

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 names the resource ('Registered conventions') and implies the listing action, and it explicitly contrasts with the sibling post_listing ('Pick one before post_listing'). It does not mention the read-sibling get_convention, so differentiation is partial, but an agent can still tell what this tool returns.

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?

It gives a clear call-to-action: 'Pick one before post_listing,' which tells the agent exactly when to reach for this tool. The optional-query usage is also demonstrated ('With a query (e.g. dog walking), the closest come first'). No explicit when-not-to-use is given, keeping it short of a 5.

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