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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It conveys that the tool analyzes and returns structured recommendations, implying a read-only analytical operation, but it does not explicitly disclose limitations, side effects, or whether any state is modified. This is adequate but not deeply transparent.

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 starts with a crisp purpose sentence, then presents a well-organized bulleted list of input fields, and ends with a brief return statement. It is succinct, front-loaded, and free of redundant or filler content.

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 tool with a single nested-object parameter, the description thoroughly documents the expected input structure. It also indicates the output nature ('structured analysis and recommendations'). However, specifics about the output format or additional behavior are vague, but this is largely sufficient given the tool's simplicity and lack of output schema.

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 schema only defines 'deployment_info' as an object with additionalProperties: true, leaving all subfields undocumented. The description adds substantial meaning by enumerating expected fields (keycloak_version, deployment_type, database, protocol, cache_type, auth_providers) and even providing allowed values for some, far exceeding schema coverage.

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 a specific action ('Analyze Keycloak deployment configuration') and outcome ('identify potential issues or provide recommendations'). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'explain_keycloak_protocol' or 'keycloak_search' by focusing on deployment analysis rather than explanation or search.

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 provides input context by listing expected fields, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention when not to use it. Sibling names imply distinct purposes, but the description lacks direct usage guidance or exclusions.

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