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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only and idempotent. The description adds behavioral detail about version binding (immutable release) and resource-type-specific actions (explicit consent vs open-only), complementing annotations without contradiction.

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, each serving a distinct purpose: first states the primary action, second clarifies parameter and behavior nuances. 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?

Given the tool's complexity (mixed resource with two distinct behaviors), the description covers all necessary context. Output schema exists, reducing need for return value explanation. High schema coverage and annotations further support completeness.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the description adds value by explaining that supplying version 'binds an immutable hosted release', which clarifies its semantic role beyond the schema's pattern and optionality.

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 'the best safe next action for a mixed resource'. It distinguishes between hosted skills (exact install commands) and upstream-only resources (open-only), providing specificity beyond the sibling tools.

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 explains when to use the version parameter and differentiates behavior for hosted vs upstream resources. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or list alternatives like 'resource_detail' or 'fetch'.

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