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

The annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful context beyond these annotations by disclosing that the tool never returns customer data and requires no credential, which is useful for an agent deciding whether this tool is safe and appropriate.

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 two short sentences with no redundant filler. The core function is front-loaded, and the behavioral caveat about customer data and credentials is placed directly after, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 tool with no required parameters, full schema coverage, and an output schema, the description covers the essential facts: what it returns, that it is public-only, and that no credentials are needed. It lacks explicit sibling differentiation, but the tool's low complexity means 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 single parameter include_registry is fully described in the schema, so schema coverage is 100%. The description does not add much parameter-level detail beyond the schema, but it does slightly reinforce that registry links are part of the public discovery output. Baseline 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: returning BaseCite public developer, API, MCP, registry, and safety-boundary links. It clearly separates this from the sibling tools by emphasizing 'public discovery' and 'never returns customer data', making the tool's scope immediately understandable.

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 implies usage context by noting it requires no credential and only returns public links, which suggests when to use it. However, it does not explicitly compare against basecite_get_ai_context or basecite_get_capabilities, nor does it state when not to use this tool, leaving the routing mostly to inference.

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