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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description goes further by stating it does not write any file or execute any step, requires no auth, makes no API calls, and has effectively no errors. This adds valuable behavioral context beyond the annotations, making the tool's side-effect-free nature unmistakable.

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 (three sentences) and front-loaded: it states the core purpose first, then side-effect constraints, then related tools. Every sentence carries useful information with no fluff, and the structure logically leads an agent through purpose, behavior, and alternatives.

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 simple, read-only, non-destructive tool with no required parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers what it does, its side effects, auth requirements, error behavior, and related tools. An agent has all information needed to call it correctly and understand the result (a human-readable runbook).

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%, with each of the three optional parameters (apiUrl, crawlUrl, displayName) described as values to show in specific runbook steps, omitting them yields placeholders. The description does not add any semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate; the schema fully explains parameter meaning.

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's purpose: generate a human-readable runbook with example payloads for a B2B bootstrap. It specifies the verb 'generate' and the resource 'runbook', and explicitly distinguishes itself from related tools by naming alternatives for actually running the sequence. No ambiguity.

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 explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance: use this for documentation only; to actually execute the sequence, use `ethora-run-recipe` or `ethora-b2b-app-bootstrap-ai`. It also notes it requires no auth and has effectively no errors, helping the agent decide if this is the right tool for a given task.

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