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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/no-side-effects, so 'Read-only: no side effects' is largely redundant. The genuinely additive disclosure is that agent-step sections (e.g. ingest steps) inside the returned content are replaced by a one-line marker and named in omitted_sections — that is non-obvious behavior an agent must know before relying on the text. It also flags the size/cost profile relative to heavier artifacts.

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?

It is a long single block, but front-loaded (purpose and use-case first, exclusions next, return contract last) and every sentence carries information. The return-shape sentence is dense but necessary since no output schema exists.

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?

With no output schema, the description supplies the full return contract (kind, source_url, media_type, note, omitted_sections[], content) plus the omission rule, and covers selection, cost, and safety. An agent has everything needed to call it and interpret the result.

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 tool takes zero parameters, which the description states plainly ('No parameters.'), matching the empty input schema. Baseline for a 0-param tool; there is nothing further to document.

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?

Specific verb+resource ('Get the Designesy /llms.txt brief as reference data') followed by an enumeration of what the brief contains. It explicitly differentiates itself from siblings by naming designesy_llms_full_txt and designesy_contract as the alternatives for adjacent needs.

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?

Gives an explicit positive condition ('Use this first when you don't know what Designesy is') and an explicit negative one ('When NOT to use') with the two sibling tools that cover those cases. Nothing about tool selection is left to inference.

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