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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, and the description adds behavioral context beyond those: it explicitly warns against inferring or defaulting facts, which aligns with openWorldHint=false. This gives agents a clear operational constraint not present in the structured annotations.

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 zero waste. The main purpose is front-loaded, and the second sentence adds an essential constraint. Every word 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?

The description covers the core purpose and a key behavioral rule, and the output schema covers return values. However, it leaves the 'activity' parameter entirely unexplained, and it does not situate itself relative to the sibling tools. Adequate but with a clear gap.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the 'activity' parameter. It does not mention the parameter at all, leaving its meaning and impact on the guide unexplained. With a single optional parameter, this is a notable gap.

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: 'Show the categories of facts to prepare before a premises-licensing preflight.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from its siblings, which focus on authority checks and plugin info. The purpose is unambiguous and instantly actionable.

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 provides clear context (before a premises-licensing preflight) and a crucial rule: 'Use only user-supplied facts; never infer or default missing authority, venue, activity, alcohol, hours, or exemption facts.' It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions relative to siblings, but the usage is well implied.

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