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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and openWorldHint=false, so 'Read-only and deterministic' mostly restates them. The description does add useful non-schema context – coverage of permissions, privacy model, and per-feature workspace requirements – but since an output schema exists, its sentence describing what each feature entry contains is largely redundant with structured data.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose and the call triggers in the first two sentences, with the feature/routing detail after. The first sentence is dense with parentheticals (product name, version) that could be trimmed, but overall it earns its space.

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?

The agent knows it is a read-only lookup tool for extension documentation, how to trigger it, and that it covers install, permissions and privacy, with an output schema covering return shape. The main remaining gap is that it doesn't clarify the relationship between the two optional parameters (e.g., what happens when both or neither are supplied).

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 100%, so both parameters (feature enum and question, max 300 chars) are already documented in the schema. The description's example questions loosely illustrate the 'question' parameter but add no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides; baseline 3 applies.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource: it explains what TechFabric's Chrome extension for Databricks does, how to install it, its permissions and its privacy model. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by naming the server-side tools (toolkit_generate, estimate_cost, review_databricks_code, explore_concept) whose functionality overlaps with extension features.

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?

Explicit trigger phrasing: 'Call it for "what can the TechFabric Chrome extension do", "does the toolkit support X", "how do I install it" or "what permissions does it need"'. It also routes the agent between this tool and the server tool equivalents, which is exactly the when-to-use guidance an agent needs.

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