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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses the compactness behavior: FAQs cap at 6 and long sections degrade to fit a deep-link budget. It also reveals that deepLinks is null over MCP, a runtime behavior an agent would not otherwise know. This adds valuable context not covered by the annotation.

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 concise and well structured: it opens with the core purpose, followed by limitations and alternatives, and ends with a specific field behavior. Every sentence adds value, and the most critical information (what it does) is front-loaded.

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?

Although there is no output schema, the description adequately explains what the payload contains, its limitations, and directs users to full sources. It covers the single parameter implicitly, notes the deepLinks behavior, and is complete for a one-call read tool. An agent has enough to invoke it correctly and interpret the response.

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 defines suggestionId with UUID format and pattern but no description. The tool description adds the context that it is 'for an article suggestion', clarifying the parameter's role. For a single well-named parameter, this is adequate but minimal—no additional details like how to obtain the ID or constraints beyond the format. Schema coverage is 0%, so the description does compensate partially but not thoroughly.

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 clearly states the tool 'returns a compact writing payload for an article suggestion', listing the specific contents (brief essentials, keywords, acceptance criteria, lint instructions). It also differentiates it from siblings by naming get_article_brief and get_lint_rubric as the full counterparts, so the purpose is unambiguous and distinct.

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?

Explicitly states when to use this tool vs. alternatives: 'the FULL brief is get_article_brief and the full check list is get_lint_rubric, so verify against those, not this.' This gives clear guidance that this is for quick access and that the full sources must be consulted for complete information. Also notes the deepLinks field becomes null over MCP, setting expectations for use.

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