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

Annotations already assert read-only and non-destructive, so the description adds value by disclosing doc sizes (~8KB, ~4-5KB), content summaries, and the note that these docs are also MCP resources exposed as a tool because resources aren't always model-readable. This explains the tool's presence and behavior without contradicting 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 front-loads the core behavior, then organizes the seven topics compactly with quoted terms and semicolons. All details are relevant to tool selection, with no 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?

For a simple one-parameter tool, the description covers all topics, sizes, use cases, and even the tool-vs-resource rationale. There's no output schema, but 'as text' plus topic descriptions give sufficient information to invoke correctly.

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 only says 'Which doc. Default agents.' The description elaborates on each enum value with purpose, size, and usage context, greatly exceeding the schema's minimal 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 opens with a clear action ('Return a canonical Clipkit doc as text'), names the resource (Clipkit docs), and enumerates distinct topic values, making it easy to distinguish from sibling tools that manage projects or elements.

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 provides explicit selection guidance: the 'card' is recommended for authoring, pattern cards should be loaded alongside the card for matching archetypes, and 'agents' should only be fetched if the card doesn't cover a need. This tells the agent exactly when to use each topic and why the tool exists.

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