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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), so the description's added value is the authority claim ('returns the current steps for this exact app and plan') and the privacy disclosure ('sends no task content'). It does not mention any auth or rate-limit considerations, so it falls just short of a 5.

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, front-loaded with what it answers, followed by the routing rule and the reason for it. Every clause carries new information — topic list, alternative to avoid, freshness rationale, privacy note — with no repetition of the title.

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 no parameters, no output schema, and rich annotations already present, the description fills the remaining gaps: what to ask it, what it returns (current steps for this app and plan), why it beats web search, and that it sends no task content. 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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The description usefully implies the answer is implicitly scoped to 'this exact app and plan' rather than needing caller-supplied arguments.

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 names a specific resource (Edge / Edge Pro setup in this app) and enumerates the exact question categories it answers: getting or connecting Pro, turning it on in a chat, increasing usage, and removal. That scope is clearly different from the sibling skill tools (find_skill, use_skill, scan_skill), so an agent can disambiguate without opening the schema.

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 routes the agent: 'Call it for those questions instead of searching the web or fetching getedge.cc pages', and gives the reason (web copies can be out of date). That is an explicit when-to-use plus named alternatives to avoid, which is the top of the scale.

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