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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes beyond that by disclosing the exact return format (Markdown) and its sections — scope, params, body, responses, sample code in four languages — which is genuinely useful since no output schema exists.

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?

One sentence plus a short example, front-loaded with the action and result format. The long enumeration of returned sections is justified because no output schema exists, though it is denser than strictly necessary.

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 two-parameter read-only lookup with full schema coverage, the description supplies everything an agent needs: what it returns, in what format, and a worked example. With no output schema, the section-by-section account of the response is exactly the missing piece.

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 'method' and 'path' are already documented in the schema, including the concrete-id alternative. The description's 'Example: method "POST", path "/leads"' reinforces but does not extend the schema's meaning, so 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get one Vocenya API endpoint in full, as Markdown') and enumerates exactly what the returned document contains. It is clear enough to distinguish from a bare list or search, but it never names the siblings (list_endpoints, search_docs) that retrieve endpoints in other shapes.

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?

Usage is implied by 'one ... endpoint' plus the method/path example, so an agent can infer this is the detail-lookup tool rather than a lister. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of when list_endpoints or search_docs would be preferable, and no note about what happens for an unknown method/path.

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