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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds real behavioral context beyond them: it returns markdown plus a source URL, the server cannot detect the framework, master topics ignore the framework and orchestrate routing to per-framework guides, and 'guidance is a default, not a mandate'. This is unusually rich disclosure for a read-only tool.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and usage, which is good, but the topic catalogue is restated almost verbatim in both the description and the schema enum descriptions, and the paragraph runs long with heavy parenthetical chaining. Information-dense but not efficiently sized.

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?

Complete for a read-only guide lookup: no output schema exists, and the description still discloses the return format (markdown + source URL), the topic taxonomy, the framework requirement rules, and cross-topic sequencing. Nothing an agent needs to call 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning the enum list does not: the master-vs-per-framework distinction (framework REQUIRED vs IGNORED), the orchestration role of master/flags-master/billing-master, and the 'pass the one the target app actually uses; this server cannot detect it' constraint on framework.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Read the Bridge integration guide for a topic') and immediately frames its scope as the opinionated consumption path, which distinguishes it from siblings like diagnose_integration or scaffold_flags_integration. An agent can tell what it returns and why it exists without opening the 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?

Explicitly prescribes when to call it ('BEFORE writing or changing app code that reads a feature flag, renders billing or team UI, or wires authentication') and warns against the alternative (hand-rolling against SDK internals). Adds sequencing rules ('Start at topic=master when integrating for the first time', 'read topic=fit-together before setting up flags/roles/plans/limits').

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