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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context: 'Cheap, no embedding' and 'Call ONCE per session' (a usage constraint). It does not contradict annotations and provides extra context beyond the structured fields.

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 description is a single dense paragraph, front-loaded with the core action, followed by usage context, content list, and cost/behavior notes. Every sentence carries information with no redundancy or fluff.

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 one enum parameter, read-only annotation, and no output schema, the description covers purpose, when to use, content, and cost. It is complete for the tool's complexity and leaves no critical gaps.

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 input schema already contains 100% parameter coverage with an enum for language and a description. The tool description repeats 'js' or 'lua' but does not add new semantic detail beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline but does not elevate it.

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 states the tool loads a 'calling-convention reference' for RedM/RDR3 natives in js or lua, which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like lookup_native and get_document by focusing on the invocation guide rather than general documentation.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Call ONCE per session before writing native-calling code' and explains why every native doc page only shows Lua examples. However, it does not name specific alternative tools or provide when-not-to-use scenarios, so it falls short of the highest bar.

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