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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive annotations: it states the tool does not create an organization, does not change balances, does not accept working data, and any input field triggers a JSON-RPC -32602 error. This is valuable and does not contradict the annotations.

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 compact: it front-loads the use case, then clarifies behavior, side-effect safety, and error handling. Every sentence carries useful information with no filler.

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?

The tool has no parameters, an output schema, and complete annotations. The description covers when to use it, what it returns, what it does not do, and how it reacts to invalid input, so an agent has everything needed to invoke it 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?

There are zero parameters and the schema already states that an empty object must be passed. The description goes further by explicitly warning that any input field produces JSON-RPC -32602 Invalid params, which adds practical guidance beyond the schema.

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 specifies the tool's behavior: it returns a fixed sequence of warehouse steps for a safe first-day test in DokyDepo. It also names the intended use case, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_embed_widget or list_public_tools.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: when a small warehouse owner wants to safely test DokyDepo with one training item before importing a catalog and inviting a team. It does not mention alternatives or exclusion cases, so it stops short of a 5.

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