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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower. The description nonetheless adds valuable scope information: it returns public surfaces only and explicitly does not initiate payment or paid work, which is a meaningful behavioral boundary not present in the 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?

Two tight sentences with no filler; the core action and returned content are front-loaded, and the boundary caveat follows. 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?

For a simple single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers intent, returned surface types, and a behavioral boundary. Minor gaps remain around error/empty handling and pagination, but nothing essential to correct invocation 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so public_id is already fully documented by the schema. The description reinforces its semantic ('one published Evercraft capability'), adding slight clarity about scope beyond the schema's wording, but does not introduce format or constraint details the schema lacks.

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 gives a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('public connection surfaces for one published Evercraft capability') and explicitly enumerates what those surfaces are (MCP, OpenAPI, A2A, website, docs URLs). The 'one published capability' framing implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling list/match tools without ambiguity.

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 purpose implies usage, and 'Does not initiate payment or paid work' sets a useful boundary condition. However, it never states when to call this versus list_evercraft_capabilities or match_evercraft_capability, so an agent must infer that this is a follow-up step after obtaining a public_id.

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