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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: it 'never requests your incident notes' and instructs the AI to keep them local, plus conditional output details about the rating-sheet checklist appendix. No contradiction with annotations.

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 three sentences: purpose, topic enumeration, and privacy note. The topic list is dense but necessary; the privacy sentence is an extra but valuable addition. No fluff, though the long enum list makes it slightly less scannable.

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?

The tool is simple (1 optional param, no output schema). The description covers purpose, topics, conditional behavior, and privacy. It doesn't describe the general response format beyond the checklist appendix, but for this tool that's a minor gap.

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 covers 100% of the parameter with a descriptive enum. The description enriches this by providing one-line semantic hints for each topic (e.g., 'tone (collaborative framing)') and the instruction to omit for full guidelines, adding value beyond the schema.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Get Lenny Zeltser's expert writing guidelines for incident response reports.' It enumerates ten distinct topics, which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like ir_get_frameworks or cti_get_guidelines.

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 clearly establishes the tool's domain (incident response reports) and lists all covered topics, signaling when to use it. It also notes that 'handoffs' routes to other servers, implying an alternative. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to prefer sibling tools like ir_get_frameworks for framework-specific queries.

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