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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds the output row shape (id|name|$from/mo|free), which is genuinely useful behavioral context, but says nothing about pagination behavior despite limit/offset parameters existing.

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?

Two short fragments are front-loaded and waste no words, but the terseness is under-specification rather than effective concision given the unexplained parameters and return format.

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?

With no output schema, 4 parameters at 0% description coverage, and only a single required param briefly implied, the definition is too thin for the agent to invoke the tool reliably.

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 0% across 4 parameters, so the description must compensate. It only indirectly hints at output fields and explains none of tool, limit, offset, or verbose, leaving the required `tool` parameter's expected format undefined.

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?

"Alternatives to a tool" states the resource and an implied list action, so the agent can roughly infer what it returns. However, it never names a clear verb and does not differentiate from siblings like compare_tools or recommend_tools, which could plausibly offer overlapping functionality.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus compare_tools or recommend_tools, nor any prerequisite or exclusion. The agent is left to guess which sibling to pick.

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