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

Annotations already cover readOnly, openWorld, and idempotent=false, yet the description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the returned payload (titles, sizes, page counts, homepage, repository) and the pricing/auth model (USDC per call via x402 or prepaid credits, free trial). That cost and payment-path disclosure is valuable for agent decision-making and is absent from structured fields.

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?

Front-loads the core capability, then states pricing. The single long sentence is dense but every clause earns its place; the pricing sentence is short and separate. Minor verbosity from enumerating ecosystems twice.

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 an output schema present and annotations covering safety, the description need not explain return values, yet it does so anyway plus adds pricing. It is complete enough for an agent to select and call the tool, with only the absence of sibling routing as a residual gap.

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 parameters are already well documented, establishing a baseline of 3. The description adds only light conceptual framing ('project's docs site' vs. 'company domain') and does not expand on syntax or precedence when both site and library/ecosystem are supplied.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Find the AI-ready docs for any library or API') and details what it scans: docs sites from npm/PyPI/crates/Go metadata, or company domains, for llms.txt and llms-full.txt. Distinguishes itself conceptually from siblings like docs-lib and docs-answer, but never names or contrasts them explicitly.

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 two input paths (project metadata vs. company domain) are implied through the site/library parameters, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative among siblings such as docs-lib, docs-answer, or library-research. Usage must be inferred.

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