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

Annotations already mark the tool as readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable context by explaining that modes and endpoints are read from the corpus, ensuring up-to-date information. This goes beyond annotations and clarifies the tool's dynamic nature, but it does not elaborate on output format or potential side effects (which are unlikely given 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?

The description is two sentences long, with the purpose in the first sentence and an important behavioral note in the second. There is no fluff or redundant repetition. Every sentence earns its place, and the most critical information (purpose) is front-loaded.

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?

Given the simplicity of the tool (one parameter, no output schema), the description covers essential aspects: what it does, when to use it, and how it stays current. It does not explicitly state the return format, but the phrase 'get the constraints that apply' implies the output content. An explicit mention of return structure would improve completeness, but this is a minor gap, not a fatal flaw.

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 input schema has 100% coverage for the single 'context' parameter, with a clear description and examples. The tool description repeats some examples (web checkout, mobile app, etc.) but adds no new information beyond the schema. This aligns with the baseline score of 3 for high schema coverage; the description does not compensate for any gaps because there are none.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Decide how to integrate ROKI Connect for a given project' and lists specific integration modes (web checkout, embedded card fields, mobile app, etc.). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like roki_search_docs or roki_get_integration_example by focusing on mode selection and constraints, not documentation lookup or code examples.

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 specifies the intended use case: before writing code, for a given project. It enumerates project types, giving clear context for when to invoke the tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it lacks explicit exclusions but is still clear enough for a competent agent.

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