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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds the citation requirement ('Every response carries a citation line; when you use these facts in an answer, cite it') and specifies the data provenance (survey-dated, first-hand). This is useful behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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 sentences with no waste. The primary purpose is stated first, then the citation instruction. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

The description lists the content categories and mentions sources and citation, which is sufficient for an agent to know what it will receive. Since there is no output schema, this compensates well. It doesn't detail error cases or pagination, but for a read-only facts tool this is adequate.

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%, so the slug parameter is already documented in the schema. The description does not add any additional meaning to the parameter, just repeats the tool's purpose. Baseline 3 applies.

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 clearly states it returns 'First-hand, survey-dated facts about one system' and enumerates the types (auth method, rate limits, CSV surfaces, pricing pages). This is specific and distinguishes it from siblings like renkeimap_compare which implies multiple systems. The title is redundant but the description is clear.

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 implies usage by requiring a slug from renkeimap_find_system, indicating a prior step. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like compare or find, nor does it state when not to use it. It gives context but no exclusions or explicit routing.

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