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

Annotations only provide readOnlyHint; the description carries far more: base URL, Bearer auth, the Idempotency-Key header on sends, mode precedence (indexOnly over operations), and concrete payload sizes (a few KB vs 40-50 KB). It even flags the context-cost consequence of dumping a full resource on every later turn — exactly the behavioral context annotations cannot express.

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 purpose and alternative-to-avoid come first, then auth, then the mode breakdown ordered by increasing cost. Dense but every sentence carries distinct, actionable information; nothing is redundant with the schema or annotations.

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 an output schema present, return shape need not be described, and the description instead supplies the auth, cost model, and mode-selection guidance an agent needs to invoke this reference tool efficiently. Nothing required to call 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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters, making 3 the baseline. The description goes further by explaining why indexOnly takes precedence and why omitting `operations` produces the oversized unfiltered dump, adding decision-level meaning beyond the field docs.

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 and resource — an authoritative REST API reference for writing integration code — and clarifies it is a documentation lookup, not a mutating action, which cleanly separates it from the many create/update/delete siblings. An agent can tell exactly what this returns without opening the schema.

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 says to use this 'instead of guessing endpoint shapes or SDK names,' and lays out the three call modes with a recommended sequence: start with indexOnly, then expand only the two or three operations you will actually call. When-to-use and which-mode-to-use are both prescribed.

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