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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the description need not repeat safety info. It adds valuable behavioral context: default mode is tips, detail:true triggers full connection guide, insights:true returns usage data, goal triggers recipe mode. This goes beyond the annotations and schema.

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 is three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then mode options, then flow. Every sentence earns its place with no fluff. It is concise, well-structured, and easy to scan.

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?

The description covers the main modes and the overall flow, which is sufficient for typical usage. It doesn't detail all special modes (feedback, voices, combinations, history), but the schema provides those details. Without an output schema, it doesn't explain return values, but for a lookup tool the return is implied. It's complete enough given the schema and annotations.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds some context by referencing key parameters (detail, insights, goal) and their effects, but most parameter semantics are already fully documented in the schema. It doesn't compensate significantly for the 14 parameters, but it doesn't need to given the schema richness.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Get everything you need about a service before using it.' It distinguishes from sibling search_services by positioning as step 2 of the flow and listing distinct capabilities (tips, detail, insights, recipes). This is a specific verb+resource with clear scope.

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 an explicit usage context: 'This is step 2 of the standard KanseiLink flow: search_services → lookup → (execute) → report.' This tells the agent when to use it relative to other tools. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it's only a 4 rather than 5.

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