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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that it covers multiple CDNs and a WordPress plugin, which is useful context, but does not detail output format or how the instructions are delivered.

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 well-crafted sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and followed by the scope, with zero filler. Every clause 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 zero-required-parameter, single-enum-parameter read-only retrieval tool, the description is adequate but leaves gaps: it doesn't clarify how instructions are returned (text, links, steps), and doesn't differentiate from the sibling get_sulvo_installation_instructions. Given no output schema, more detail on the return format would help.

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 100%, so the single parameter (cdn) and its enum are fully documented in the schema. The description adds marginal value by noting the CDN options and the WordPress alternative, but doesn't expand on parameter behavior beyond what's already in the schema.

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?

Clear verb+resource: retrieves setup instructions for Sulvo Boost, with a specific definition of the feature (first-party serving from publisher's own CDN that recovers ad-blocked impressions). The distinction from the sibling get_sulvo_installation_instructions is implied by naming this feature, though not explicit.

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?

Usage is implied by the description – you call it when you need setup instructions for Sulvo Boost. However, it does not state when to use this vs get_sulvo_installation_instructions or other setup-related siblings, which is a notable gap given many similar tools in the environment.

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