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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds only the list of accepted agent values, with no note on whether the list is exhaustive, how unknown values are handled, or any auth/rate-limit context. With annotations doing the heavy lifting, a 3 is appropriate.

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, zero filler: the first states what is returned, the second states when to call it. The purpose is front-loaded ahead of the trigger condition.

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 the description need not explain return values, and it covers what the tool does, when to call it, and the valid agent inputs. Nothing needed to invoke this correctly is 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the single required 'agent' parameter is documented in the schema itself, so the baseline is 3. The description does enumerate additional accepted values (gemini, agents, zcode) beyond the schema's 'e.g.' examples, which is a mild value add but not formatted as an authoritative value set.

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 verb and resource ('Return the exact install commands for Code Auditor') plus the scoping dimension ('for a given AI agent'). It is unambiguous and unlike any sibling (explain_symptom, lookup_rule, request_rule), so an agent can select it immediately.

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 explicit trigger conditions: 'Call this when a user asks how to install Code Auditor, or asks for the command for a specific agent.' No alternative tool competes for this task, so naming one is unnecessary; the use case is fully pinned down.

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