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

Annotations already declare safe read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, while the description adds useful context about returned source types, labels, applicability, verified dates, and the fact that PromptingCraft methodology records are never official provider guidance. Pagination and ordering are not described, but the output schema and limit parameter reduce the need.

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 front-loads the purpose, then adds return scope, a key caveat, and the full-record alternative in compact sentences. There is no filler, and each sentence contributes to tool selection or interpretation.

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 search/list tool with all-optional enum parameters and an output schema, the description covers purpose, return scope, key source caveat, and the full-record alternative. The omission of explicit routing to check_source_freshness is minor given the mention of verified dates.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description adds a meaningful constraint that PromptingCraft methodology records are returned only when kind is promptingcraft_methodology and are never official guidance. It otherwise mostly reinforces the fixed-category enums rather than adding detailed per-parameter semantics.

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: 'List curated guidance records' with target agent, model family, scope, and topic matching. It also distinguishes itself from get_guidance by directing full-record retrieval there, so an agent can identify the tool without opening either schema.

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?

It explicitly points to get_guidance for full records and states the special kind condition for PromptingCraft methodology records. However, it does not address when to prefer check_source_freshness, so it stops short of full when/when-not/alternatives guidance.

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