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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered without the description. The description adds only the shape of the result (tool names plus descriptions), and with an output schema present even that is largely redundant.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope. The second sentence partially restates the first ('list of tools' vs 'tool names and descriptions'), so it is efficient but not maximally tight.

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 a rich enum schema, an output schema, and full read-only annotations, the agent has everything needed to invoke this correctly. The only unaddressed item is the relationship to list_bundles, which is minor for a parameterless-in-practice discovery call.

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% and the single bundle_id parameter carries a full enum of 31 values plus a description, so the schema does all the work. The prose adds no format, casing, or fallback guidance beyond it, making the baseline 3 correct.

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 ('Get') and resource ('list of tools in a specific bundle'), which clearly distinguishes it from the hundreds of calculate_* siblings and from list_bundles. It does not, however, name list_bundles as the source of the bundle_id, so the boundary between the two discovery tools is only implicit.

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 phrase 'in a specific bundle' plus the schema note 'Bundle ID from list_bundles' implies the intended two-step flow, but the description itself never says when to call this versus list_bundles or what happens if the bundle is unknown. Usage is implied, not stated.

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