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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so 'Read-only; no side effects' is largely redundant. However the description adds the return shape (Markdown list with title, explanation, source citations), which the annotations do not convey. Useful added context, but partly overlapping with 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?

Two tight sentences: the first states what it is, the second states usage and the alternative. Front-loaded and no filler.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by describing the return format. With annotations carrying the safety profile and schema covering the single parameter, nothing needed to invoke it 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% with a single parameter fully documented in the schema, including the multi-repo fallback behavior. The description adds no parameter detail, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Get Moxie Docs' summary of how THIS repository organizes and maintains documentation') and scopes it to doc organization/placement. Clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_documentation_opportunities or list_docs.

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?

Explicitly states when to use it ('to decide WHERE a new doc should go before calling propose_doc_update') and names the alternative for a different question ('for the list of WHICH docs need work, use get_documentation_opportunities instead'). Both the trigger and the exclusion are spelled out.

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