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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It fails to disclose that the tool performs a network fetch, validates EBML structure, or discards the file. The only behavioral hint is 'file discarded', which is vague and unexplained.

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 extremely short, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. It is a fragment that omits the essential verb and object. A concise description should still be a complete sentence that states what the tool does.

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 tool has 9 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, so the description must carry substantial contextual weight. It fails to explain the tool's purpose, its network behavior, what 'discarded' means, or what the agent should expect as a result. This is completely inadequate for a tool with this complexity.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 9 parameters. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, but the baseline of 3 applies because the schema covers the parameters. The description does not compensate for the fact that the tool's core input (the URL to check) is not explicitly identified.

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 'WebM EBML check, file discarded' is a fragment that does not state a clear verb or resource. It does not explain what the tool does, and it does not distinguish it from the 30 sibling tools. The name 'webm-ebml-check' is more informative than the description itself.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as browser-url-ok, fetch-status, or file-path-ok. There is no context, no exclusions, and no mention of prerequisites or intended use cases.

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