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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds 'No commercial obligation' and 'Risk R2; PUBLIC' which are context signals but not behavioral details about what the tool does or what happens when invoked. It does not contradict the annotations, but it also does not add meaningful behavioral transparency beyond 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 description is short, but it is not front-loaded with useful information. The first sentence is vague and jargon-heavy. The second sentence ('No commercial obligation. Risk R2; PUBLIC.') is terse but adds little value for an agent deciding how to invoke the tool. It is concise but not effectively structured.

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?

Given the tool has one undocumented nested parameter, no output schema, and a vague description, the definition is incomplete. An agent cannot determine what input to provide or what the tool will return. The annotations cover safety but not the core operational context needed to use the tool correctly.

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 undocumented 'apiDescription' parameter. The description does not explain what 'apiDescription' should contain, its structure, or how it is used. The parameter is a nested object with no schema details, and the description provides no guidance, leaving the agent to guess.

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 says 'performs bounded first-agent work through the shared capability policy dispatcher' which is vague and jargon-heavy. It does not state a concrete verb+resource (e.g., 'diagnoses API issues' or 'analyzes an API description'). The title 'API Doctor' hints at diagnosis, but the description itself fails to specify what the tool actually does. It also does not distinguish it from siblings like get_axiom_capabilities or search_directory.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The phrase 'bounded first-agent work' is unclear and does not explain the intended use case. There is no mention of when not to use it or which sibling tool might be more appropriate.

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