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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, and the description adds valuable behavioral context: never truncated regardless of diagram size, always returns every entity ID, and requires a valid access token. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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?

Four sentences, all front-loaded: a clear purpose statement, then usage guidance, an alternative, and an auth requirement. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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?

For a single-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description fully covers what it returns (entity IDs, labels, counts), when to use it, and the alternative. The context is complete and sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool 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?

The schema has one parameter (token) with 100% coverage explaining it embeds the document ID. The description only restates the token requirement ('Requires a valid access token'), adding no new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 applies due to high schema coverage.

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 a complete structured summary of a Trident document as JSON with specific entity ID types and counts. It explicitly distinguishes this from open_document for human-readable diagrams, making the purpose specific and differentiating it from siblings.

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 provides explicit usage guidance: 'Use this for PROGRAMMATIC OPERATIONS', 'Use this before any bulk update, delete, or enumeration task', and directs to open_document for human-readable reading. This is clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use with a named alternative.

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