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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the burden is light. The description adds real context beyond them: the return is the canonical text verbatim (not a summary) and carries a sha256 for integrity verification.

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 sentences with no filler; the verbatim/checksum guarantee and the topic list come first, and the routing advice follows. Every clause earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value details need not be spelled out. For a single optional-enum, read-only retrieval tool, the description covers purpose, alternative routing, and output guarantees with nothing material 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?

The single `topic` parameter has 0% schema description coverage, but its enum values are self-explanatory and the description maps them to prose (setup, buying, orders, wallets) and clarifies that 'recipe' means the nonce recipe. That added gloss compensates for the missing schema descriptions.

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 (return) and resource (canonical Daski guide) and enumerates the five topics the guide covers. 'Verbatim with its sha256' further pins down the exact output form, so the agent can distinguish it from any summarization tool.

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 says 'Prefer this over fetching the guide's URL through a tool that summarizes pages,' naming the alternative class and the reason (verbatim vs summarized). No specific sibling tool is named, so it stops just short of a 5.

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