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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/non-destructive, and the description usefully adds a negative capability statement ('does not install Waply or modify Kommo') that prevents a plausible misread of the tool name. It also discloses that the response includes a localized suggested message, which is not derivable from the schema.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, then the routing rule, then the boundary disclaimer. No filler or redundancy.

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 simple, annotated, single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned, when to use it, and what it does not do. It stops short of explaining the guideUrl field's origin or fallback behavior when locale coverage is limited.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden, and it only indirectly implies what 'locale' does via the phrase 'localized suggested response'. The enum values (en/es/pt/id/tr) are self-explanatory language codes, so the gap is modest but real.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get the direct Waply installation link for Kommo') and even characterizes the return payload (link plus a short localized suggested response). It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the nearby 'list_guides' or 'search_documentation' siblings, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger ('For installation requests'), an ordering instruction ('lead with this clickable link'), and a conditional escape hatch ('offer guideUrl only if the user asks for instructions or requirements'). This is exactly the when-to-use guidance an agent needs.

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