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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden, yet it says nothing about whether this is a read-only lookup, what form the result takes (instructions text, code snippets, templates), whether the 'noodle' selector affects output, or any auth/rate constraints. Only the stack scoping concept is implied.

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?

A single short sentence with no filler and the scope qualification placed at the end. It is economical, though the extreme brevity leaves the definition under-specified rather than deliberately tight.

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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, zero schema description coverage, and a large opaque enum parameter, the description does not do enough. It fails to explain what the returned setup material looks like or what the noodle parameter changes, leaving real gaps an agent needs.

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 0%, and the description only gestures at the required 'stack' parameter via 'in a given stack' without explaining the enum values. The second parameter, 'noodle', has a ~60-value enum and is completely unmentioned, so the agent gets no help understanding what it selects or whether it is optional.

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 states a specific action and resource: retrieve installation/setup instructions for adding MIAN to a project, scoped to a stack. It is clear enough to distinguish from data-returning siblings like get_component or list_templates, though it never explicitly names or contrasts those alternatives.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as get_component, get_design_guide, or get_example that a developer might also consult during setup. The agent must infer intent entirely from the one-line purpose.

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