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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and openWorld=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: 'Free, no key' (auth requirement) and what the zero-argument call returns, which the annotations do not convey.

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?

Front-loaded with the 'call first' directive, and every sentence carries information. The inline JSON examples are slightly verbose but earn their place by showing real invocation shapes.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be detailed, yet the description still summarizes what comes back (five jobs as calls, connection info). Combined with annotations and full schema coverage, the agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 goes further by demonstrating how the optional parameters combine in practice (license+use, or question), clarifying intended usage patterns beyond the schema's field-level docs.

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 states a specific function: returning the five jobs Rightshold does as ready calls plus connection info, and optionally answering a license question in the same call. It positions itself as the entry point, which distinguishes it from siblings like ask_rightshold and check_license, though the operative verb ('returns') is somewhat implicit.

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 gives a clear condition: 'Call first if you are new to Rightshold,' and shows two concrete invocation modes (checking a license or asking a plain-English question). It stops short of naming which siblings to use instead once the agent is familiar, so it is strong context without explicit alternatives.

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