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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose meaningful traits: output is plain text, it contains ordered operations plus one guard clause per observed failure mode, and it is derived from the contract so it cannot drift (a freshness/determinism guarantee). It does not mention permissions, rate limits, or failure behavior, but for a read-only 'get' it covers the important ground.

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?

Two dense sentences with the verb and resource front-loaded, then the artifact's contents, then the trust guarantee. No filler or repetition; every clause carries information.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must characterize the return, and it does: plain text, ordered operations, guard clauses tied to contract claims. For a single-parameter lookup tool this is close to sufficient, with only auth/error behavior left unstated.

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?

Only one parameter and schema description coverage is 100% ('contract id or host, e.g. moltbook'), so the schema already does the heavy lifting and baseline is 3. The description adds only that the id identifies 'a platform', marginally reinforcing but not extending the schema.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('Get a plain-text integration recipe for a platform') and states what the artifact contains: order of operations plus guard clauses. The resource is clearly distinct from siblings like get_surface_contract or verify_surface, though no sibling is named explicitly to sharpen the contrast.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer you call this when you need step-by-step integration guidance for a platform. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement and no routing against get_surface_contract, verify_surface, or preflight_mcp_server, which is the main gap.

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