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

Annotations only provide broad hints (non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive). The description adds genuine behavioral detail: duplicate titles are skipped unless overwrite is set, and the tool reports added/replaced/skipped/capped counts. This aligns with the annotations and goes beyond them.

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?

Three short sentences, with the core action and results front-loaded. Every sentence adds information, though 'Free: 10 of your own' is telegraphic and could confuse an agent without more context. Still, the description is economical and well-ordered.

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 two-parameter import tool, the description plus schema cover file formats, overwrite behavior, plan limits, and reported counts, which is enough for correct invocation. It lacks explicit error semantics and a full return shape, but the listed counts partially compensate for the missing output schema.

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 fully documents both path and overwrite. The description's 'duplicate title is skipped unless overwrite' and 'json is Pro' largely restate what the schema says, adding little new parameter-level meaning.

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 opens with a specific action ('load clauses from a .md or .json file') and names the observable outcome (added/replaced/skipped/capped counts). It is clearly distinct from siblings like clause_add or clause_export, but it never names those alternatives, so differentiation is implicit rather than explicit.

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 first sentence explicitly tells the agent when to call it: to import clauses from a file. It also adds plan-level context (JSON is Pro, markdown works in free tier, 10-clause cap). However, it does not name alternative tools or state when not to use them.

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