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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine non-redundant context: it does not process a document and is normally not billed, plus the underlying REST endpoint. It stops short of describing pagination or result size.

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 tight sentences plus the endpoint path, with the core purpose front-loaded and no filler. Every clause carries 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?

With no parameters, no output schema, and annotations covering the safety profile, the description is nearly self-sufficient: it names the returned fields and the billing/no-processing behavior. Only minor gaps (pagination, ordering) remain.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so this dimension has no schema surface to compensate for. The description does disclose the response shape (name and slug), which is a small added value despite being about output rather than input.

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+resource ('List the Prompt Builder (LLM extraction) configurations of the project') and even declares the returned fields (name, slug). This clearly distinguishes it from the generic dochorizon_list_configurations and the schema-fetching get_prompt_schema siblings.

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 description implies a discovery use-case ('Does not process a document; normally not billed') but never explicitly says when to call this versus capture_with_prompt or list_configurations. Usage is inferable but not stated.

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