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

Annotations already establish readOnly/openWorld=false/destructive=false, and the description adds real behavioral context beyond them: MCP Apps clients get an interactive explorer while every client receives identical text data, and the same map is mirrored at a public URL. It doesn't say anything about result size, truncation, or ordering for the grouped list (only that keyword stories are newest first), which is the remaining gap.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the resource and its contents before usage guidance and client rendering. The URL sentence earns its place for citation purposes but is the one line that could be trimmed.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation isn't required, and all three parameters are documented. The description covers the zero-required-parameter 'list everything' case and the keyword drill-down case, leaving only edge-case combination behavior unstated.

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% and each parameter already carries a description, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description reinforces that naming a keyword returns that keyword's stories and that groups are a fixed set of four, but adds no new semantics such as how query filtering interacts with group or whether all three can be combined.

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 resource (the worklore keyword map) and precisely what it returns: every story tag with its count across four named editorial groups, plus the stories for a named keyword. It also distinguishes the two modes of the tool in one sentence, so an agent knows it is both an index and a drill-down.

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?

Gives an explicit use condition — the user asks what worklore has on a topic, or wants to browse rather than search — which implicitly routes away from search_stories. It stops short of naming the sibling tool or stating exclusions, so the routing cue is clear but not fully explicit.

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