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

The description explicitly discloses side effects beyond the annotations: 'a few fields provision on load — webhook_url registers the endpoint, hosted_url mints the link — idempotent, but not a pure read.' This transparently communicates that despite being idempotent and non-destructive, it is not a pure read-only operation.

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 dense yet concise, packing a clear purpose, usage examples, side-effect warnings, and return format into a few sentences. It uses effective punctuation (em-dashes, parentheses) to structure information without unnecessary verbosity.

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 core functionality, examples, edge case for listing fields, return shape, and side effects, which is sufficient for a tool of moderate complexity. It does not enumerate all possible field names or error conditions, but these are not critical for basic usage and the description is reasonably complete.

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 description explains the crucial field_name parameter, including its default '' behavior for listing available fields. It also clarifies that the return value follows the field's native shape. However, it does not elaborate on node_id, workflow_id, or context, relying on their self-explanatory names, which is acceptable but not fully explicit.

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 fetches a node's LIVE computed field, distinguishing it from stored config. It provides concrete examples (webhook_url, active_alarms, file_browser) and explains the field_name='' usage to list available fields, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 gives implicit usage guidance by noting that the tool returns computed values not stored in config and that calling with an empty field_name lists available options. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or scenario-based recommendations, so it falls short of fully explicit when/when-not guidance.

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