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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, and the description's 'Read-only' merely restates that. It does earn credit for disclosing the three distinct invocation behaviors and their differing return shapes (topic index with slug/title/summary, full topic body plus canonical help url, keyword-search results), which is return-behavior detail no output schema provides. It stops short of covering error behavior for an unknown slug or whether slug and query can be combined.

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 purpose, then the trigger conditions, then the calling modes, then valid topic values — a logical progression with no filler sentences. The topic list is long but each entry functions as a valid argument value, so it earns its space.

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 zero-required-parameter, two-param, no-output-schema read tool this is close to self-sufficient: purpose, triggers, invocation modes, return shapes, and valid slug values are all present. Remaining omissions are small — parameter interaction and error handling — and do not prevent correct invocation.

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 carries the full burden, and it does: no args yields the topic index, `slug` returns one topic's full body, `query` performs keyword search. It also enumerates the eight valid topic slugs, effectively supplying the enum the schema lacks. Minor gap in not stating mutual exclusivity or precedence between slug and query.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource ('Get Koongo help topics') and immediately scopes it as glossaries and deep-detail reference kept out of server instructions, which cleanly separates it from the operational siblings like get_ad_item_report or marketplace_status.

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?

States concretely when to reach for it: interpreting a marketplace/ad listing or item status produced by list_*_items, get_*_item_report, *_status, *_report, or needing reference on product filter, value/options mapping, currency conversion, or safe activation. It names the upstream sibling tools that create the need, which is exactly the routing information an agent requires.

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