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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it clarifies that the files[] array is a logical canonical inventory, not an exact archive listing, and that this tool avoids downloading the zip. This is meaningful behavioral nuance that helps an agent interpret results correctly.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the deliverable and the download behavior, the second explains usage and the key caveat with an alternative. Information is front-loaded and each sentence earns its place.

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 single-parameter read-only tool with rich annotations, the description fully covers what the tool returns, why to use it, and the important caveat about files[]. The absence of an output schema is mitigated by the description naming the manifest and JSON Schema. Nothing essential is missing for correct invocation.

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?

The input schema covers the single parameter characterId with a simple description. With 100% schema description coverage, the description adds little beyond the schema, and none is strictly needed for this straightforward parameter. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description states exactly what the tool returns: the tizo-export.json manifest plus its JSON Schema, without downloading the zip. It explicitly frames the purpose as learning the Phaser integration shape and field meanings, and distinguishes itself from get_export_command for exact archive contents. This is a specific verb+resource with clear sibling differentiation.

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 description gives direct usage guidance: use this to learn integration shape before wiring an export into a game project. It also names get_export_command as the alternative when exact shipped contents matter, and explains the files[] limitation. This is explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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