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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers non-mutating behavior. The description adds useful operational context by mentioning required project context and the data content returned, but does not discuss potential errors or pagination. With the annotation present, the description is appropriately transparent.

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 compact and well-structured, with the primary action and result stated first, followed by use-case and prerequisite guidance. No unnecessary words or redundant details.

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 description provides enough context to understand the purpose and expected output fields, and notes the project context requirement. However, since there is no output schema and the tool is a list operation, a brief mention of response shape (e.g., array of snippets) would make it slightly more complete.

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?

Both parameters are fully described in the schema as public GUIDs, so the description adds no additional parameter semantics. The relationship between documentationId and versionId is implicit but not elaborated; schema coverage is complete, earning the baseline score.

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?

Clearly states the tool lists snippets of a documentation version and specifies the returned fields (slug, content, page usage count). The intended use cases of browsing snippets or finding an ID are explicit, and it is easily distinguished from get_doc_snippet in the sibling list.

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?

Provides direct guidance on when to use the tool (browsing snippets or finding an ID), points to manage_doc_snippet for create/change/delete operations, and notes the prerequisite of project context. This is sufficient for an agent to select the appropriate action.

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