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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description isn't needed for the safety profile. It does add real context beyond that: it explicitly says mttr does not write the page (clarifying the division of labor), discloses the three-open-briefs cap, and points to mttr_rescan as the next step. Missing is anything about latency, permissions for 'claimed' sites, or failure behavior.

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 core purpose is front-loaded, followed by two operational constraints. The enumeration of brief contents is slightly long but each item is functional information an agent would otherwise lack. No filler sentences.

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 single-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description is largely complete: it details what the returned brief contains and what to do afterward. The remaining gap is disambiguation from the similarly named mttr_brief sibling in a 60-tool namespace.

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 100% for the single 'site' parameter, so the schema already carries the domain-format guidance. The description only adds the qualifier 'claimed' site, implying the domain must already be registered with mttr—marginal value over the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 precisely what the tool returns: the brief for the page most worth writing next on a claimed site, and enumerates the brief's contents (question, why, page kind and path, facts, voice, rules). This is more specific than the title alone. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the sibling mttr_brief, which an agent would reasonably confuse it with.

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?

It gives a state constraint ('at most three briefs are open at once') and a follow-up route ('when the page is live, call mttr_rescan'), but never says when to choose this over mttr_brief or mttr_content_brain. Usage is implied by the workflow rather than explicitly scoped.

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