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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds substantial context beyond those: it discloses a per-call cost ('$0.001 USDC or 1000 drops XRP'), states 'read-only, does not execute code', and explains the matched=false contract for catalog misses. This is meaningful behavioral information not encoded in the structured 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?

Four dense sentences, each carrying essential information: purpose, usage precondition, fallback routing, sibling disambiguation, cost, and safety profile. Nothing is redundant; the main action is front-loaded and the additional context is packed efficiently.

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 definition is complete for a diagnostic tool with an output schema. It explains the input requirement, the failure mode (matched=false), the cost, the safe/read-only nature, and how it relates to sibling tools. Since the output schema exists, return values are already documented, and no critical operational detail 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% and both parameters already have clear descriptions: error_log as 'Raw traceback or exception text' and framework as the allowed list. The tool description repeats the framework list but adds no new parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Match') and resource ('stack trace or exception against known deprecated APIs') and names the exact frameworks (langchain, llamaindex, ollama, xrpl). It also explicitly contrasts with fetch_latest_syntax ('Not for happy-path syntax'), so an agent can distinguish this from siblings 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?

It gives an explicit precondition ('Use only when you have an error_log'), a fallback action ('matched=false ... then search_ai_framework_docs with the failing symbol'), and a preventive alternative ('Lint source before it crashes with review_framework_code'). It also excludes happy-path syntax with fetch_latest_syntax, leaving no ambiguity about when to call this tool.

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