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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context by detailing what the returned skeleton contains, which helps the agent know exactly what to expect. No contradiction with 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 only two sentences, front-loaded with the action verb 'Return,' and lists components efficiently. Every sentence earns its place 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 read-only scaffold-generation tool with good annotations and 100% schema coverage, the description is complete. It states what the tool does, what it returns, and when to use it, without needing to over-explain given no output schema is present.

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%, with both 'stack' and 'mode' described in the input schema. The description does not add extra parameter information, but the schema carries the full burden, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 returns a full runnable skeleton for a stack and enumerates the components (credential storage, API client, checkout flow, webhook handler, polling fallback). It distinguishes itself from siblings by positioning it as the way to start an integration rather than assembling one from memory.

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?

Provides explicit usage guidance with 'Use it to start an integration instead of assembling one from memory.' However, it does not name specific alternative tools (e.g., roki_get_integration_example), so it offers clear context but no formal when-not/exclusion clause.

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