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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently explains what the tool returns, including weight, grants, warning status, and alternatives. It does not mention edge cases like invalid permission names or host patterns, but for a read-only lookup tool this is a strong, non-misleading description.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that starts with the core verb and lists all key output aspects in a structured, readable way. Every element earns its place, with no fluff or repetition.

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?

This is a simple, single-parameter tool with no output schema, and the description fully enumerates the kinds of information returned. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool 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?

The input schema already fully describes the single 'permission' parameter, including examples of both permission names and host patterns. The description reinforces the same idea ('permission or host pattern') but adds no parameter-specific detail beyond what the schema already covers, so a baseline of 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 uses a specific verb ('Returns') and clearly identifies the resource ('a single Chrome extension permission or host pattern'). It enumerates the exact information provided (privilege weight, what it grants, install-time warning, narrower alternative), which fully distinguishes it from sibling tools like analyze_manifest and compare_permission_sets.

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 clearly implies this tool is for explaining one permission and lists what it returns, giving the user context for when to invoke it. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or refer to alternative tools such as analyze_manifest or compare_permission_sets.

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