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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive traits; the description adds context beyond them by specifying that the tool returns a full input schema and details for a single ability. It does not contradict annotations and gives a clearer picture of what the call reveals.

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?

Two sentences contain the purpose, the trigger condition, the source of the argument, and the exact value to pass. There is no filler or repetition of schema/annotation content.

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 single-parameter read-only introspection tool with an output schema present, the description is complete. It covers when to use it, what to pass, and what it returns, alongside sibling context and annotations that carry the safety profile.

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 semantic weight. It does so by explaining that ability_name must be the exact value obtained from discover_abilities, which is more meaningful than the raw schema's bare string type.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Get the full input schema and details for a single ability') and immediately differentiates from the sibling discover_abilities by scoping to a single ability. It also tells the agent this is the more detailed fallback, so intent is unambiguous.

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 explicitly names the alternative discover_abilities and gives the condition for choosing this tool ('when discover_abilities isn't enough'). It also instructs the caller to pass the exact ability_name from discover_abilities, which is a concrete prerequisite.

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