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

Annotations already convey read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context by specifying that the tool surfaces AETumi's capabilities and canonical links, which goes beyond what the annotations alone provide and is consistent with them.

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?

The entire description is one concise phrase that directly states the tool's subject and content areas. There is no filler, repetition, or unnecessary detail.

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 zero-input, read-only informational tool, the description is adequately complete: it tells the agent what kind of content to expect. It could explicitly say it returns a static reference page, but the absence of parameters and the presence of rich annotations reduce the need for more detail.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the input schema fully covers any invocation needs; there is nothing meaningful for the description to add about 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 clearly identifies a static informational resource about AETumi and lists what it contains: identity, capabilities, and canonical links. It is distinguishable from the asset-focused sibling tools, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'returns' or 'provides.'

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 the appropriate use case: when an agent or user needs an overview of AETumi. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus the sibling tools, nor does it mention what kinds of queries should be routed elsewhere.

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