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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that results are paginated and include counts, which is useful, but says nothing about ordering, result caps, or cost despite the openWorldHint.

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?

A single compact sentence, front-loaded with the core action; the semicolon-clause structure packs three facts without padding. Dense but not wasteful.

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 no explanation, and this is a simple read-only lookup. For a 4-parameter query tool with only one required argument, the description covers the essentials.

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 coverage is 0%, so the schema adds nothing beyond names and defaults. The description explains min_occurrences as the rare-pair filter and gestures at pagination, but page and limit semantics and the string format for tech_name are left to inference.

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 verb and resource: listing technologies co-detected with a given technology, with counts. That co-occurrence framing cleanly distinguishes it from siblings like search_technologies, get_technology_stats, and get_popular_technologies, though it never names an alternative outright.

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?

'min_occurrences drops rare pairs' implies when to raise the threshold, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no guidance on choosing this over get_technology_stats or get_technologies_by_scan, and no prerequisites.

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