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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful scope detail: it inventories only visible and non-secret controls, implying hidden or secret fields are excluded. No contradiction exists.

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 deliver the main action, scope, and use case with no filler. The most important constraints ('visible', 'non-secret') are front-loaded.

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 single-parameter read-only tool with an output schema and rich annotations, the description gives all necessary context: what is inventoried, its scope, and how it relates to prepare_portal_fill. Nothing critical 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 schema covers the only parameter, sessionId, with a full description and example. The tool description does not need to add parameter-level detail, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description uses a specific verb ('inventory') and names the exact resource scope ('visible non-secret form controls (label/name/type) on the current portal page'). It also points to its downstream consumer (prepare_portal_fill), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like fill_fields.

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?

'Use to align prepare_portal_fill keys' provides an explicit intended use case and links to the companion tool. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it for the pre-fill inventory step.

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