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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context — that output contains placeholders only and that no credentials should ever be passed — but says nothing about the shape of the returned config or whether files are written.

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 dense sentence with the output constraint front-loaded and the credential prohibition appended. Nothing is wasted and the most important caveat appears before an agent forms assumptions.

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 two-parameter read-only generator with no output schema, the essential safety caveat (placeholders, no credentials) is present. However, an agent still cannot tell what the returned configuration looks like or how this differs from get_setup_guide, leaving a meaningful gap.

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 carry parameter meaning. It clarifies that the domain must be a public hostname (useful, non-obvious), but leaves the client enum's three values and their implications completely unexplained, so half the input surface remains undocumented.

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?

States a specific verb (Build) and resource (client configuration) and qualifies the output as placeholder-only for a public hostname. It does not name the supported clients (traefik, win-acme, certbot) or differentiate itself from siblings like get_setup_guide, but the core action is unambiguous.

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?

No when-to-use guidance and no mention of the sibling tools (generate_update_script, get_setup_guide, get_service_info) or which situation selects this one. The 'never supply credentials' line is a constraint on invocation, not a usage rule for choosing between tools.

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