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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint), the description adds meaningful behavioral context: 'Read-only and no retention' and specific limitations like not executing instructions in user text. This is valuable disclosure that goes beyond structured metadata.

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 three sentences, each contributing distinct information: what it does, when to use it, and what it cannot do. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no redundant phrasing.

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 single-parameter, get-by-id tool with an output schema, the description provides sufficient context: purpose, usage timing, limitations, and parameter semantics. The output schema covers return values, so no further explanation is needed.

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 single parameter resourceId is only described as 'stable identifier' in the description, while schema coverage is 0%. It adds context that the ID is stable and tied to approved resources, and the usage note implies the ID comes from a recommendation. However, it could more explicitly connect the parameter to its origin format.

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 approved Tier1 public resource metadata by stable identifier, using the specific verb 'Returns' and naming the exact resource type. It also distinguishes from sibling tools by noting it is for use after a recommendation, implying it retrieves a specific resource rather than listing recommendations.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use after a recommendation when more Tier1 guidance is useful,' which tells the agent when to invoke this tool. It also lists what it cannot do (fetch arbitrary URLs, access internal content, etc.), effectively providing when-not-to-use guidance and clarifying boundaries.

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