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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so 'Read-only' merely restates structured data. The description adds no behavioral context such as whether the steps are fixed/canonical, whether the effect duration varies by person, or how the content is returned.

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?

It is short with no padding, which is good, but it is telegraphic to the point of being a fragment rather than a sentence, and 'Read-only' is wasted words given the annotations. It reads like a content summary rather than a tool description.

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 zero-parameter, read-only lookup with no output schema, the definition is adequate but thin: it doesn't say what form the answer takes (steps list? prose?), nor how it differs from the adjacent about_nwb/ask_nwb tools. Complete enough to invoke, not complete enough to choose confidently.

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; the baseline for a no-param tool applies. No parameter confusion is possible.

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 conveys the content domain (the four approved steps, serving guidance, effect duration), so an agent can guess this returns usage instructions. But it has no verb and never says plainly 'returns how-to-use instructions,' and it doesn't distinguish itself from siblings like about_nwb or ask_nwb that plausibly cover similar ground.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance at all, and no routing relative to siblings such as about_nwb (background info) or ask_nwb (free-form Q&A). The agent must infer that this is the canonical usage-steps source.

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