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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals a safe read operation, and the description adds meaningful context beyond it: some extensions are published by API Evangelist rather than vendors, so keys must not be blindly treated as provider-originated. It also previews the output categories, which is helpful because no output schema exists.

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 compact sentences carry real content: the first defines the resource and expected output fields, and the second delivers an essential caveat. There is no filler or redundancy, and the warning is front-loaded enough to affect interpretation before use.

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 single-entity read tool, the description plus schema covers what is returned, the view modes, and the critical data-interpretation caveat. It lacks an explicit alternative tool mention, but given the read-only annotation and documented parameters, nothing essential is missing for a correct call.

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 75% and the view, context, and include_next parameters are already well documented in the input schema. The description does not add parameter-specific details beyond high-level output categories, so the baseline score 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 clearly identifies the resource as a single OpenAPI specification extension and enumerates its returned dimensions: publishers, occurrence and document counts, where it appears, and value shapes observed. The singular framing distinguishes it from find_extensions and other get_* siblings.

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 implies this tool is for retrieving one extension, but it never explicitly states when to use get_extension versus find_extensions or other get_* tools. The is_api_evangelist warning is a valuable interpretation rule, yet it is not guidance about tool selection.

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