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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false), but the description adds substantial behavior: it discloses the return payload (doc + content version + SDK floor to pin) and the paging protocol (~32KB sections, more:true in the header, offset=<next_offset>, never re-fetch from 0). That is exactly the operational context an agent needs to call this repeatedly without wasting calls.

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 first sentence front-loads the purpose, and the pipe-delimited enum walkthrough is dense but scannable. It is close to the upper bound of acceptable length for one description, and a few parenthetical asides (e.g., 'what stunning means') could be trimmed without losing signal.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by naming the return fields and paging mechanics. For a doc-fetching tool with three parameters and a large enum, nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline would be 3, but the description goes further by explaining the intent of each doc value in prose rather than just listing enums. It falls short of 5 because the 'connectors' enum value present in the schema is not described, leaving one option semantically opaque.

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 ('Fetch') and resource ('Supero build reference') and enumerates the exact doc variants with what each contains. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling build_get_examples by prescribing the order in which each is read.

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?

Explicit sequencing is given: read 'skills' FIRST, then 'components' plus a matching build_get_examples before authoring UI, and 'landing' is marked MANDATORY for public-facing apps. It names the alternative (build_get_examples) and the condition that selects it.

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