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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds useful behavioral detail: default output format is Markdown (token-efficient), format=json returns the structured object, and include modes change what is returned.

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 information-dense and front-loads the core purpose, but it runs as a single long paragraph rather than using scannable structure. Every sentence is relevant, though the include-mode details could be more digestible.

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?

With no output schema, the description fully explains what each include mode returns, the default format, and the alternative format option. An agent has enough context to call the tool correctly without further documentation.

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%, but the description significantly enriches the enum values by explaining exactly what structure, links, and both return. It also clarifies that structure is the default and that format controls Markdown versus JSON, adding meaning beyond the terse 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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Survey a project' to produce a map of structure, links, or both. It distinguishes the tool from document-reading siblings by positioning it as a pre-read survey and by describing the two distinct output modes in detail.

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?

Clearly says to use it 'before opening any document' and explains that structure mode helps decide what to read. It does not explicitly name alternatives like traceable_doc_read or state when not to use this tool, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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