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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable context by stating 'writes no files and uses no network,' which goes beyond the basic read-only hint and clarifies the tool's side-effect profile. It also explains that it is generated docs context, adding behavioral insight without contradicting annotations.

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 well-structured with clear sections for purpose, usage, inputs, and effects. It is not overly long and front-loads the main purpose. However, the 'Inputs' section is inaccurate and should be corrected, preventing a perfect score.

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?

The tool has an output schema, so return values are covered. The description gives purpose, usage, and safety context. However, it fails to accurately describe how the actual parameters (platform, projectName, expectedVersion) influence the returned docs context, and the phantom 'cwd' and 'include sections' create confusion. This gap makes the description incomplete for an agent trying to invoke it 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?

While the schema describes all three parameters (platform, projectName, expectedVersion) with 100% coverage, the description introduces 'Inputs: cwd selects project docs context' and 'include sections only when the longer runbook is needed.' Neither 'cwd' nor 'include sections' correspond to any actual schema property, creating misleading guidance. Rather than adding value, this misdirects the agent and detracts from the schema's clear parameter definitions.

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 clearly states the tool returns project-local Axint docs context, using a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('docs context'). It further distinguishes the tool from siblings by explaining it is durable docs memory for agents to reload after chats or compaction, and that it avoids rereading the whole site.

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?

The description explicitly says 'Use: use after compaction when the agent needs workflow docs without rereading the whole site,' providing a clear when-to-use scenario. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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