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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds useful behavioral context: it notes the payload is identical to a deep-link resource and explicitly states the locale default and how to request Hebrew, which is beyond what the schema enum conveys.

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 efficient sentences with no filler. The core purpose and payload equivalence are front-loaded, followed by usage guidance and parameter instructions. Every sentence earns its place, and the example queries help without bloating the description.

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?

For a simple, one-optional-parameter read-only tool with an output schema, the description is largely complete. It covers purpose, scope, language handling, and default behavior. The only minor gap is not explicitly contrasting with the sibling tools, though the 'broad questions' framing implies differentiation.

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 0%, so the description bears the burden for parameter meaning. It compensates well by explaining the locale parameter: 'Pass locale he for Hebrew; default is en.' This gives the agent the key decision rule for the only parameter.

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 opens with a clear, specific verb and resource: "High-level Truss business overview." It also scopes the tool to broad questions about Truss and Pini's professional work with concrete example queries, making it easy to distinguish from more focused sibling tools.

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?

"Prefer this tool for broad questions about Truss as a business" gives explicit routing guidance for when to select this tool over alternatives. It stops short of naming sibling tools or stating when not to use it, but the 'prefer' framing and broad-vs-specific examples provide solid context.

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