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

Goes well beyond the annotations (which only declare it safe, idempotent and closed-world) by disclosing that no provider calls or credits are consumed, that configuration remains unknown, that private provider identities are redacted, and that the legacy representation is refused when it exceeds the reply budget. These are exactly the side-effect, cost, and failure-mode facts an agent cannot infer from structured fields.

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-loads the purpose, then pagination mechanics, then cost/privacy guarantees, then the sibling pointer — a sensible priority order in four tight sentences. Slightly dense jargon ("paged_v2", "representation legacy") costs a little readability but no sentence is filler.

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 explain return values, and it covers the remaining gaps an agent needs: default paging behavior, the cursor loop, size limits, cost, redaction, and the alternative tool. Nothing material is missing for a zero-required-parameter read tool.

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%, so the baseline is 3; the description adds the operational loop ("follow page.next_cursor until null") that the per-parameter descriptions do not spell out as a traversal pattern. The page_size cap and legacy refusal largely restate the schema, so the added value is real but modest.

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 object ("Inspect connection authority and installed tool blockers") and immediately names the sibling it is not for (webanto_get_integration_health for commerce status). An agent can distinguish it from the many other get_* tools without opening the 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?

Explicitly routes commerce status questions to webanto_get_integration_health and frames the tool's domain as connection authority and tool blockers. It does not address overlap with adjacent siblings like webanto_get_capabilities or webanto_get_mcp_support, so the exclusions are only partial.

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