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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true; the description adds substantive behavior: it constructs a `query { root(context: <context>) { <selection> } }`, requires every selected field to supply all arguments, and notes that omitting context returns the flag LOGIC rather than a reduced value. That is genuinely useful context beyond the safety hint.

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?

Front-loaded with the outcome and then the mechanics; each sentence carries information about construction, arguments, or prerequisites. Slightly dense with backtick-heavy GraphQL fragments, but nothing is padding.

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 two parameters, nested context object, and no output schema, the description covers the query construction, the argument requirement, and the context-omission case, so an agent can call it correctly. It could still say more about the shape/limits of returned values or errors.

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% (baseline 3), and the description still adds meaning: it explains that `selection` is a GraphQL selection supporting nested fields with an inline example, and that `context` is inlined as the `context` arg with omission having a distinct semantic effect. This goes past restating the schema.

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 and resource: 'Evaluate one or more feature flags for a given context and get their resolved values.' It also names a related concern (flag LOGIC vs reduced value when context is omitted). However, it does not disambiguate itself from close siblings hypertune_get_logic and hypertune_query, which an agent would naturally confuse with this tool.

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 concrete routing advice: 'Use hypertune_list_flags / hypertune_introspect first if you don't know the flag names.' That is a real prerequisite step. It stops short of stating when to prefer this over hypertune_get_logic or hypertune_query, so the agent must infer the boundary between evaluation and retrieval.

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