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

With readOnlyHint already covering safety, the description adds real behavioral value: it is a single-round-trip aggregation of three tools, returns 'same shapes as the single tools', and imposes a mandatory obligation ('★Always relay the included disclaimer and citation★') that no annotation conveys. That obligation is exactly the kind of non-obvious behavior worth surfacing.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the composition formula, then inputs, then the mandatory relay warning. The ★ markers are slightly noisy but the content is dense with no filler.

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 composite read tool with no output schema, the description covers what it aggregates, that return shapes match the single tools, and the disclaimer/citation obligation. An agent has enough to call and relay it correctly.

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 100%, and the description's 'Give a slug or the system name as the user wrote it' restates what the schema already documents (slug preferred; query when slug unknown). Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the parameter meaning.

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 defines the tool operationally as a composite ('One round trip = renkeimap_find_system + renkeimap_status + renkeimap_hintpack'), which tells an agent exactly what it returns and names the three sibling tools it bundles. It could state the verb+resource more directly (identify a system and return its status plus remediation), but the composition formula is unambiguous.

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?

'Use first in support conversations' gives explicit context, and the composition line implies it substitutes for the three single tools. It stops short of explicit exclusions (e.g., when to prefer the individual tools), but the when-to-use signal is clear.

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