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

With read-only and idempotent annotations already covering safety, the description adds meaningful behavior: coverage previews, coverageSummary, obsMappingState, runtimeObservation metrics, and the important caveat that missing observability is unknown rather than zero. It does not discuss pagination, permissions, or authentication behavior beyond saying 'No identity args.'

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 description is front-loaded with the three main modes and packs useful detail into a short space. It is dense and somewhat telegraphic, but every sentence carries relevant information.

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 complex multi-mode tool with no output schema, the description explains key return fields, coverage/test previews, observability semantics, and selector parameters. It is still missing coverage of the includeManual/includeRemoved filters and clearer authentication-parameter guidance.

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 only 20%, so the description meaningfully compensates by mapping rootFilePath/serviceKey to service lists and id/oasOperationId/httpMethod+pathTemplate to detail retrieval. It leaves includeManual and includeRemoved undocumented, and 'No identity args' is somewhat ambiguous given the presence of botId and projectApiKey.

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 states specific verbs and resources: list API operation services, list operations for a service, or fetch one operation's coverage detail. It clearly distinguishes its internal modes, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools such as list-api-operation-interactions or coverage-related 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?

It gives useful mode-selection guidance, including the explicit preference: 'Prefer --id for detail and --root-file-path for a service list.' It lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or alternative sibling-tool routing.

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