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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states that derivation handles three known shapes, that un-derivable fields are omitted and returned as a to-do list, and that capabilities are never fabricated. This is exceptional transparency.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with purpose and followed by essential constraints. There is zero waste; every word contributes to understanding the tool's behavior.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description tells the agent what to expect (a catalog and an optional to-do list) and explains the derivation logic. It lacks details on error handling or the exact structure of the catalog, but for a single-parameter tool this is largely sufficient.

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 already fully documents the single 'domain' parameter. The description adds context by indicating that the domain may serve .well-known/mcp.json and that the tool will derive from it, providing meaningful behavioral context beyond the schema's generic description.

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's function with a specific verb ('Produce') and resource ('ARD catalog'), and distinguishes it from siblings by mentioning derivation from .well-known/mcp.json. It is unambiguous and directly aligned with the tool name.

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?

The description implies when to use the tool (when generating a catalog for a domain) and notes that it handles .well-known/mcp.json if present. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like validate_catalog or audit_domain, so guidance is clear but not fully explicit on alternatives.

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