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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description earns credit for adding genuinely new context: policy evaluation happens inside Regent, the credential is injected proxy-side and never exposed to the agent, and no side effects or fund movement occur.

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, zero padding, with the target URL and allowed methods front-loaded ahead of the credential-handling and no-side-effect notes.

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 5-parameter proxy tool with no output schema, the description covers the transport, allowed methods, credential flow and side-effect profile adequately. It omits error/authorization-failure behavior and the meaning of the nested 'facts' object, but the schema carries most of that.

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 80%, so parameters are largely self-documented and the baseline is 3. The description only restates the method allowance (already an enum in the schema) and adds nothing about 'facts', 'intent', or 'user_token' semantics.

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 (read) and an explicit resource (the koleso.kz API via Regent), and constrains the operation to GET/HEAD/OPTIONS. An agent can tell it apart from the non-'_read' sibling lst-a23997bcffc7, though no sibling is named or contrasted directly.

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 read-only framing and method whitelist imply when the tool applies, but there is no explicit statement of when to reach for this versus lst-a23997bcffc7 or the other *_read siblings, nor any stated prerequisites for supplying facts/user_token.

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