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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and a closed-world scope, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the output is placeholder-only and is never executed, which is useful clarification but largely echoes readOnlyHint. It says nothing about what the placeholders contain, whether the script needs credentials filled in, or what form the result takes.

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 sentence of roughly a dozen words with the action front-loaded and the two constraining facts (placeholder-only, not executed) following immediately. Nothing is redundant or padded.

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 one-parameter generator with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description covers the essentials but leaves the return value vague: an agent cannot tell whether it receives raw script text, a file path, or a structured object, nor what the placeholders represent. Given the simplicity of the tool the gap is modest but real.

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?

There is one required parameter (language) whose enum values are self-explanatory and are restated in the description as "Bash or PowerShell." However, schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explicitly state that language selects the script dialect or that it is required, so it only partially compensates for the empty schema descriptions.

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 uses a specific verb ("Generate") plus a concrete resource ("Bash or PowerShell DNS update starter"), and the qualifiers "placeholder-only" and "does not run it" bound the outcome. It does not name any sibling, but the operation is clearly distinct from build_client_config, get_service_info, and get_setup_guide, so an agent can select it without ambiguity.

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 phrase "placeholder-only ... does not run it" implies the intended use case (you want a starting scaffold, not execution), but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement and no reference to alternatives. The agent must infer that this tool is for scaffolding rather than performing DNS updates.

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