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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden and does reasonably well: it declares "Read-only," discloses that unauthenticated callers get the signup step prepended, and describes the returned artifacts (sequence, limits, try_before_call table). It does not discuss rate limits, caching, or whether the example is executable, leaving some behavioral surface uncovered.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the return contents and zero filler. The first sentence is a heavy noun phrase, but every clause (read-only, when to call, auth behavior) earns its place.

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?

With no output schema and a simple two-parameter schema, the description fully covers what the tool returns (sequence, limits, try_before_call table), when to use it, and the auth flow. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 100%, so both `kind` and `tenant_key` are already documented in the schema, including the header-wins-if-both-present rule. The description adds only indirect context (the unauthenticated→signup flow) and does not expand on valid `kind` values or tenant_key sourcing, so it remains at the baseline.

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 gives a specific verb and a concrete resource: it returns the shortest ordered sequence of calls to a working tool of the requested `kind`, plus limits and a try_before_call table, with the caller's namespace substituted in. An agent can tell this apart from the sibling `host.tool_publish` (which it references) and from `signup` without opening any schema.

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 explicitly states when to call it: "Call this before host.tool_publish if you're not sure what a spec should look like," and gives the auth precondition that unauthenticated callers hit the signup step first. It doesn't cover other scenarios (e.g., looking up limits independently), so it's clear context rather than a full when/when-not decision tree.

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