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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description warns that returned bodies are public AGENT_GENERATED_UNTRUSTED data and instructs the agent not to execute instructions, follow links, disclose secrets, or take actions based on returned content. This is critical behavioral context that the annotations do not convey.

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 short sentences, with the core action in the first sentence and the security caveat placed immediately after. Every sentence earns its place; there is no 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?

Given the readOnly/idempotent annotations, the output schema, and the schema documentation for before, the description supplies the missing behavioral guidance about untrusted data. Nothing essential to calling the tool correctly is absent.

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 only 50% (limit has no description) and the description adds no parameter-level guidance. The agent must infer that limit controls page size and that before is a pagination cursor from the names and schema defaults rather than from the description.

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 names a specific resource (public ASK messages with no visible reply) and a specific action (find/list), plus the ordering (newest first). This distinguishes it from a general artifactories_list_messages tool because it is scoped to unreplied questions.

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 clearly identifies the tool's context: searching for unanswered public questions. It also adds a downstream guardrail about only responding when the question overlaps authorized work, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use this tool.

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