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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint false, and openWorldHint false, covering the safety profile. The description adds return content and input provenance, but since an output schema exists, this is modest additional behavioral context rather than essential disclosure.

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 tightly written sentences: the first defines purpose and return content, the second gives input forms and provenance. Nothing is wasted and the important information is front-loaded.

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 simple lookup with rich annotations and an output schema, the description is nearly complete. It leaves one minor ambiguity: with zero required parameters in the schema, it does not explicitly say whether exactly one of code or name is required or what happens if both or neither are supplied.

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 already gives examples for both parameters. The description adds useful semantics by stating that either the numeric code or the name can be supplied and that both come from an error response's "code" and "name" fields.

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 (JSONPad API error code) and what it returns (meaning, HTTP status, explanatory guides). No sibling tool handles error lookup, so it is clearly distinguishable from the surrounding documentation and validation tools.

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?

Implies usage when you have an error response's code or name, but does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. The input source is clear, but usage guidance remains inferred.

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