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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description discloses credit usage, wallet-based authorization, in-memory-only storage, 15-minute retention, per-wallet and server-wide result limits, and that part content is untrusted third-party data. These are exactly the behavioral details an agent needs before invoking it.

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 purpose is front-loaded and every sentence adds operational value, but the long run-on sentence listing retention limits and untrusted content is dense. It could be structured more readably without losing content.

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 tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential context: how to get the inputs, wallet authorization, memory-only retention, capacity limits, and the untrusted nature of returned names and descriptions.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining both parameters: eval_id maps to more.eval_id from the prior result, and n refers to part numbers in 1..more.parts. It also mentions part_count, clarifying the valid range.

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 states a specific verb and resource: fetching one part of a large evaluate_webmcp result. It clearly distinguishes this tool from the sibling evaluate_webmcp by tying it to the result's more.eval_id and part numbers.

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?

It explains exactly how to obtain the required inputs (more.eval_id and part numbers 1..more.parts from the original result) and states a key restriction: only the same wallet can fetch the part. It does not explicitly name when not to use it versus siblings, but the operational context is clear.

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