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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool returns 'current text' and that pricing/allowances change, implying dynamic content and read-only behavior. However, it does not explicitly state side-effect-free nature or any prerequisites, limiting transparency.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the tool's purpose and includes usage guidance without fluff. Every sentence earns its place.

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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, and key behavioral context (current text, changing data). It lacks explicit mapping to all enum values and return formatting, but is adequate for the tool's simplicity.

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?

The schema already provides 100% coverage for the single 'topic' parameter with enum values and a description. The description adds color by listing example topics like scan verification and Studio pricing, but does not map them explicitly to the enum values. Thus it adds marginal meaning 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 uses the specific verb 'Explain' with the resource 'how qart.uk works' and lists concrete aspects (scan verification, retargeting, free claim pool, Studio pricing, credits). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like buy_qr_outright or resolve_qart_code, which perform actions rather than explanations.

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 advises to 'Use this before guessing at product details' and notes that 'pricing and allowances change and this returns the current text.' This gives clear when-to-use context, though it does not name specific sibling tools as alternatives for different tasks.

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