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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add useful context by stating what the tool returns (novice setup guide, local MCP config, credential policy, instructions) and includes a behavioral rule ('Do not ask for merchant passwords in chat'). However, it does not disclose potential side effects, prerequisites, network calls, or operational details like port defaults, leaving gaps in 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 the trigger condition, and every word earns its place. It avoids redundancy and clearly communicates purpose and important caveats ('Do not ask for merchant passwords') without unnecessary detail.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (43 parameters, no output schema, empty annotations), the description provides a solid summary of the output contents and the high-level use case. However, it does not address parameter selection, differentiate from sibling tools, or explain any constraints/edge cases. It is adequate but incomplete for a tool of this complexity.

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 only 33% (low), so the description must compensate by clarifying which of the 43 parameters are relevant. It does not mention any parameters or provide guidance on what to pass. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, leaving the agent with little help on how to invoke the tool correctly.

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 identifies the tool's purpose: setting up a local commerce bridge for DoorDash or other merchant flows running from the user's local browser. It states a specific verb ('Call this when') and resource ('DoorDash or another merchant flow'), which makes the intent clear. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from overlapping sibling tools like setup_local_commerce_bridge or wisely_local_bridge_setup, so it loses a point.

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 provides an explicit trigger condition: 'Call this when a user wants DoorDash or another merchant flow to run from their own local browser instead of Wisely's server.' This tells the agent when to use the tool, but it does not mention alternatives or when not to use it. Given the large number of sibling bridge/setup tools, this lack of exclusion guidance makes it a 3 rather than a 4 or 5.

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