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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description title also states 'Browse'. The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: it's an interactive widget (not a data-returning API), opens a gallery, filters client-side, and pre-filters server-side. It doesn't describe navigation or exit behavior, but the interactive-widget nature is usefully disclosed.

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?

Three sentences, zero waste. Front-loaded with the primary purpose, then the exclusion/alternative, then the parameter nuance. Every sentence earns its place and the whole thing is readable at a glance.

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-optional-param read-only browsing widget with 100% schema coverage and clear annotations, this description is complete. It tells the agent what the tool does, when to use it instead (vs nifra_example), and how the param behaves. No output schema needed since it's a widget launch, not a data return.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the query parameter. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining that query pre-filters server-side AND that the widget also filters client-side — clarifying the dual filtering behavior. It also clarifies query is optional (0 required params).

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?

Specific verb+resource: 'Open an interactive, filterable gallery of ALL of nifra's verified code examples (MCP Apps widget)'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling nifra_example by explicitly stating what it is NOT for and where to go instead. The scope ('ALL'), format (gallery/widget), and use-case (browsing/discovering) are all specified.

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?

Explicit guidance provided: 'NOT for fetching one snippet as text: use nifra_example for that.' This names the sibling alternative directly and states when NOT to use this tool. Additionally, it explains the query parameter behavior (pre-filter + client-side filtering), giving the agent clear usage context.

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