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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, and the description adds useful non-obvious traits: it is free per call with no x402, catalog-backed, and has a scoped list behavior rather than a search or deprecation dump. There is no contradiction with 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 compact and front-loaded with the core listing action, followed by a clear usage trigger, cost note, and sibling exclusions. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy.

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 parameterless list tool with a rich output schema and safety annotations, the description covers what is returned, when to use it, and what it is not. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so parameter risk is trivial and the empty schema is fully covered. The description still adds value by listing the framework IDs and explaining they are string values to pass elsewhere, though no current parameter needs documentation.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'List the framework ids this server covers' and enumerates the exact IDs and returned attributes. It explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling search_ai_framework_docs and list_known_deprecations, so an agent can identify the correct tool without opening schemas.

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 trigger condition: 'Use when you do not know which framework string to pass.' It also names what this tool is not, referencing the sibling tools to use instead, leaving no ambiguity about when to choose it.

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