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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context that most input fields are ignored, but it does not explain the implications of the 'Retired' status or the return format.

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, and the deprecation notice is front-loaded. The structure is efficient, though the single-word 'Retired.' could be integrated more clearly.

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 tool with 10 parameters, 4 required, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description is too sparse. It does not explain why required fields exist if they are ignored, nor does it detail the return structure beyond a high-level phrase.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by identifying which four parameters matter (revision, expectedSha256, section, id) and that all others are ignored. However, it does not define the meaning or format of those relevant parameters.

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 states a specific resource (QFactory skill package and catalog facts) but the leading 'Retired.' makes it unclear whether the tool still functions or is deprecated. It also does not differentiate from siblings like catalog, get, or schema.

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?

It gives a usage condition ('for clients without the QFactory plugin') but offers no alternatives, no when-not-to-use guidance, and the 'Retired' label implies the tool should not be used without naming a replacement.

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