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

The description adds context beyond the annotations: it discloses that no LLM call is made, that the result must be applied externally in the dashboard (i.e. the tool itself has no side effects despite readOnlyHint=false), and that an account key is required. It does not explain what happens if no calls were recorded or how fresh the analysis is.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns, followed by operational notes (no LLM call, apply in dashboard, account key). Dense but every clause carries information.

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 and a single well-documented parameter, the description usefully enumerates the return contents and states the auth prerequisite. An agent can call it correctly, though it lacks guidance on freshness, empty-result behavior, or the follow-up set_policy step.

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% for the single proxyId parameter, whose schema description already points to okgate_create_proxy. The description only implies the recommendation is scoped to a proxy's recorded calls, adding marginal semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it produces a least-privilege tool allowlist from the proxy's recorded calls, and enumerates the outputs (minimal allowlist, per-tool argument keys, unused upstream tools). It distinguishes itself from the mutating sibling okgate_set_policy by noting 'apply it in the dashboard', though it never names a sibling directly.

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?

Usage is implied rather than prescribed: 'apply it in the dashboard' tells the agent this tool only recommends, and 'remove them first' gives ordering guidance. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not or named alternative, so an agent must infer the workflow position.

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