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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds useful behavioral context: it returns nearest-service suggestions, marks undocumented details as unstated rather than guessing, and uses metered access. 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 three sentences long, front-loads the core purpose, and includes only actionable details: what is returned, how unknowns are handled, metering, and the preferred alternative. Every sentence 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?

Given a single required parameter, 100% schema coverage, rich annotations, an output schema, and clear sibling context, the description fully covers the behavioral and selection needs. It explains the result shape, fallback behavior, honesty policy, and access cost.

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 the single 'service' parameter is already described with an example, so the description does not need to add much. It reinforces that the tool handles one third-party API at a time, but that does not materially extend the schema's 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 uses a specific verb ('Get') plus the exact resource: publisher-declared authentication schemes, scopes, rate-limit headers, and error codes for one third-party API. It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like factreason_integration_brief by naming the playbook's focused scope.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool versus an alternative: 'Prefer factreason_integration_brief when assembling a complete API call.' It also notes metered access, implying careful invocation, and clarifies the tool supports one service at a time.

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