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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description reinforces with 'Read-only; no side effects.' It also adds useful behavioral detail about the output format (Markdown list with title, explanation, source citations). The description is consistent with annotations and adds context about return shape and usage context. Though it could mention pagination or rate limits, but those are not expected here. This is above baseline since it adds value beyond the annotations.

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?

Three sentences, each purposeful: what it does, output format, and usage guidance. No fluff, front-loaded with the core purpose, then output detail, then usage guidance. No wasted words.

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 simple read-only tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the purpose, output format, usage context, and distinguishes from siblings. Combined with rich annotations (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), it leaves no gaps. The description also explains the fallback behavior of the parameter when omitted, which is helpful for multi-repo tokens.

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 single parameter `repository` is fully documented in the schema (100% coverage) with format, case-insensitivity, and fallback behavior when omitted for multi-repo tokens. The description adds the purpose of the parameter contextually (decision-making about docs), but the schema already covers semantics. Since coverage is 100%, baseline is 3, and the description slightly enhances by tying the parameter to the tool's purpose, so 4 is appropriate.

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 states the tool returns a summary of how the repository organizes and maintains documentation, with a specific output format (Markdown list with title, explanation, source citations). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by naming get_documentation_opportunities as the alternative for knowing which docs need work.

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?

Explicitly states when to use this tool (to decide WHERE a new doc should go) and when not to, pointing to get_documentation_opportunities for the list of which docs need work, and propose_doc_update as the subsequent step. This provides clear decision guidance.

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