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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, closed-world and non-destructive behavior, and the description adds genuinely new context: the user's words must never be forwarded, and 'the standard starting set is always included' regardless of input. It stops short of describing result ordering or what a 'stack' contains, but the privacy-handling and always-included behavior are the important disclosures here.

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 behavioral rules and routing alternatives are front-loaded in the first three sentences, and the long id glossary is a scannable, parallel-structured list. It is verbose, but each gloss earns its place by disambiguating an enum value.

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 closed-enum tool with no output schema and strong annotations, the description covers selection rules, privacy handling, guaranteed inclusions, and next steps. The only gap is that it doesn't hint at the shape of the returned guides/stacks, which is acceptable given no output schema exists.

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 baseline is 3, but the description goes well beyond it by glossing every enum value with a natural-language situation ('harassment (Someone is watching or harassing me)'), which is exactly what an agent needs to map user phrasing to an id. It also restates the 1-to-3 constraint from the schema plus ordering guidance ('best fit first').

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Pick the 1 to 3 situations ... get the guides and stacks') and enumerates every valid situation id, so the agent knows exactly what the tool returns. It is clearly distinct from siblings like dp_search and dp_get_guide, which are named as different actions.

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?

Explicitly names the alternative ('For a keyword lookup use dp_search instead') and the follow-up path ('Open a result with dp_get_guide or dp_get_stack'). It also constrains selection ('1 to 3', 'Choose the ids yourself from what the user said'), leaving nothing to inference.

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