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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds useful behavioral detail beyond those annotations by specifying exactly what the check returns: Baseline state, date crossed, limiting browser/version, deprecation/discouragement, and traffic exclusion share. It does not contradict the 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?

Two sentences deliver the core purpose, the output fields, and the key input constraint with no filler. The most important information is front-loaded, and every clause earns its place.

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 a detailed input schema and an output schema present, the description does not need to explain return formats. It provides the purpose, the nature of the results, the batch limit, and the key-types accepted, making it complete enough for correct invocation and selection.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents both parameters, including the resolve fallback behavior and the features array constraints. The description restates the batch size and key types but does not add meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score 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 uses a specific verb ('Check whether web features are safe to ship') and enumerates the concrete outputs: Baseline state, crossing date, limiting browser/version, deprecation status, and excluded traffic share. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like browsercompat_get_feature or browsercompat_search_features by its batch Baseline-assessment focus.

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 gives clear context: use this when you need Baseline safety data for web features, and it states the batch limit of 20 keys. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or say when *not* to use this tool, but the purpose is unambiguous enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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