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

The description adds real context the annotations do not: "Free, no key" establishes there is no auth or cost barrier. However, annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false on what reads like a pure information-retrieval tool, and the description never explains any side effect or why repeat calls are not idempotent, leaving that discrepancy unresolved.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the selection rule ("Call first if you are new") before the payload mechanics. The only slack is mild redundancy between the title's "Start here" framing and the opening sentence.

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?

With an output schema present, the description does not need to enumerate return fields, and it still tells the agent what to expect from {} (the five jobs plus connection info). The only unseen gap is the unexplained non-read-only annotation on an intelligence-only call.

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, and the description goes beyond it by showing the parameters composed in real calls (license+use together, and the question form), which clarifies they can be combined in one invocation. The SPDX example merely repeats the schema's own example.

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 concrete verb and resource: it returns "the five jobs Rightshold does, each as a ready call, plus how to connect," and answers a license/rights question when params are supplied. It also marks itself as the entry point distinct from the other 23 siblings, so an agent can place it without opening any 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?

"Call first if you are new to Rightshold" gives an explicit condition for selection, and the two example payloads show when to use it as a plain orientation call vs. a direct question. It does not name the overlapping sibling (ask_rightshold), which appears to also answer rights questions, so the boundary between the two is left to inference.

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