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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description's added value is the data semantics: shipped entries carry page, contract and rule counts while planned ones have none. That distinction materially affects how an agent interprets the response. It stops short of discussing pagination or ordering, but the behavioral gap is small.

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 purpose, then cleanly separated WHEN TO USE / WHEN NOT TO USE blocks, which is well suited to scanning. The closing paragraph about planned entries is slightly dense and mixes return-shape detail with build guidance, but nothing is wasted.

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 an output schema present, the description need not enumerate return fields, and it correctly focuses on when to call it, what the two entry types mean, and which sibling to prefer. Complete enough for correct invocation; only minor gaps around ordering or result size remain.

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 single status parameter is fully documented in the schema with an enum and default, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the shipped/planned dichotomy that the enum encodes but adds no syntax, default behavior, or filtering nuance beyond what the schema already states.

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 (lists components of the Open Components standard) and breaks the scope into three concrete categories: shipped, foundations, and planned/Roadmap. The agent can distinguish it from get-contract and search-docs without opening any schema.

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 WHEN TO USE (check whether a component has a standard, get the name other tools use, see what's planned) and WHEN NOT TO USE (use get-contract if the component is known; use search-docs to find a doc topic). Both alternatives are named with the selecting condition.

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