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

Annotations include readOnlyHint=true, and the description does not contradict this. It adds behavioral context by explaining that results are ranked by malformed-id count and that totals cover the filtered set, going beyond the basic read-only annotation.

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?

The description is two sentences: a concise headline followed by a detailed summary. Every word adds value, with no redundancy or fluff.

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 read-only rollup with no output schema, the description adequately explains what is returned (Access Points, SMPs, ranking, totals) and how filtering works. It lacks explicit return structure but is sufficient for a tool of this complexity.

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 input schema covers all 4 parameters with descriptions, so baseline is 3. The description mentions the scheme, reason, and q filters, confirming their role, but does not add new semantic meaning beyond the schema.

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 this tool provides a hosting rollup for malformed identifiers, listing which Access Points and SMPs serve them. It distinguishes itself from sibling list tools by being an aggregated view, with a specific scope and resource.

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 implies usage as a companion to the malformed list tool ('honouring the same filters as the malformed list'), but does not explicitly state when to choose this over get_id_quality or list_id_quality_malformed. Context is clear, but exclusions and direct alternatives are not provided.

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