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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It indicates the tool accesses API docs at common paths, implying a network scan, but does not disclose specifics like the number of paths checked, potential rate limits, or the nature of the response. This is minimal behavioral disclosure for a tool that likely performs network requests.

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?

The description is a single sentence with no redundant words, and the core purpose is front-loaded. It is appropriately concise for the level of detail provided, though it sacrifices completeness for brevity.

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 tool with one parameter and no annotations, the description is still incomplete. It does not explain the 'q' parameter, the expected input format, or the output structure (even though an output schema exists, it's not described). An agent would struggle to know how to call this tool correctly.

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 schema has one parameter 'q' with no description, and schema description coverage is 0%. The tool description does not explain the meaning or purpose of 'q'. The parameter is completely undocumented, leaving the agent without guidance on what value to provide.

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 states 'Exposed API docs at common paths (per-target)', which clearly indicates the tool retrieves OpenAPI/Swagger documentation for a target from standard locations. It distinguishes itself from the many siblings by focusing on API documentation, though it does not name a specific alternative. It is specific enough to understand the primary purpose.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any conditions, exclusions, or reference to sibling tools. The usage context is only implied by the purpose statement.

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