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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds a critical behavioral constraint: 'Do NOT fetch all guidances at once. Fetch the 'Backend Installation' guidance first...' This goes beyond the static annotations and provides actionable behavioral guidance. No contradiction with 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?

The description is front-loaded with an IMPORTANT warning and includes all necessary information, but it is somewhat verbose with multiple clauses and a list of guidance topics. It could be tightened without losing value, but each sentence carries meaningful 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 tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description covers purpose, usage conditions, behavioral sequencing, and the scope of returned instructions. It adequately addresses complexity and leaves little ambiguity about when and how to use the tool.

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 compensate. It references the 'guidance' parameter and gives an example ('Backend Installation') while the schema provides an enum. This adds some meaning about parameter usage but does not enumerate all options or explain each guidance value in detail.

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 instructions for integrating PropelAuth via OAuth', using a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by specifying it is for generic OAuth integration when no SDK exists, which differentiates it from the backend/frontend specific integrations.

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 provides explicit usage conditions: 'Only use this tool when specifically instructed to by another tool or the user or if a PropelAuth SDK does not exist for the project's framework.' It also gives sequential guidance on how to fetch guidances, which is clear contextual instruction. Alternatives are implied by mentioning SDK existence.

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