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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive behavior, and closed-world access, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds domain context by explaining that collections are ranked by momentum and health, but it does not add operational details such as pagination, auth, or rate limits beyond what annotations provide.

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 two tight sentences: the first defines the collection domain and ranking, and the second gives a routing instruction to get_collection. There is no filler, and the resource definition is front-loaded.

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 an output schema, complete input-schema descriptions, and rich annotations, the description does not need to explain return values or safety behavior. It gives enough domain and routing context for an agent to understand what collections are and how they relate to get_collection, though it could be slightly more explicit that this tool lists collections.

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%, and each parameter already has enum values and detailed descriptions, including kind, lang, and detail. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 defines the resource clearly as Upstar's collections, distinguishing tooling collections from alternatives, and it routes the agent to get_collection for slug-based lookup. It never explicitly says 'list' or 'return collections', so the action is implicit rather than stated as a specific verb plus resource.

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 names get_collection as the alternative when a slug is already known, giving useful context for choosing between listing and retrieving a single collection. It does not discuss when to use other siblings like search or list_topics, but for this tool's scope the routing guidance is clear.

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