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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false; the description adds critical behavioral context: it calls an external LLM, uses 300-500 tokens, requires a BYOK key, and never stores the key. It also clarifies it only fixes flagged issues, providing context about the side effects and dependencies that annotations do not cover.

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 three sentences: the first states the purpose, the second explains inputs/process/output, and the third adds cost and key requirements. Every sentence earns its place, and the key information is front-loaded. No redundancy.

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's complexity (external LLM call, 4 params, output schema), the description covers the input source, process, output, token cost, and BYOK requirement. The output schema exists, so not detailing the return structure is fine. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke correctly, though it omits nuanced edge-case behavior.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline 3 applies. The description adds meaning by linking 'gherkin' to 'test_suite.gherkin' and 'warnings' to '_gherkin_warnings', and by clarifying the fix scope ('ONLY the flagged issues') with an example ('adds missing Given/When/Then steps'). This enriches the parameter roles beyond the schema descriptions.

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 starts with 'Fix Gherkin syntax warnings from a jira_to_test_suite result', which is a specific verb+resource+source combination. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like jira_to_test_suite (generation) and generic LLM tools by focusing on post-hoc fixing of flagged warnings.

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 identifies when to use the tool: when there are _gherkin_warnings from a jira_to_test_suite result. The cost comparison '~300-500 tokens vs ~5k for a full regeneration' implies using this lightweight fix instead of regenerating the whole suite. The schema adds explicit 'do not call if you have no key', but the main description gives solid context without naming a specific alternative tool.

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