Support Information

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=true, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds valuable context about what information is retrieved (support contact details, entitlement status) that isn't captured in annotations, though it doesn't mention potential rate limits or authentication requirements. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 that are front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by specific usage examples. Every word adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse for an AI agent.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema) and rich annotations covering safety and behavior, the description provides complete context for usage. It explains what information is retrieved and when to use it, though it doesn't detail the exact return format (e.g., JSON structure), which would be helpful but isn't critical with annotations present.

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 tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the absence of inputs. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, maintaining focus on the tool's purpose. A baseline of 4 is applied since no parameters exist, and the description doesn't attempt to explain non-existent inputs.

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 states the specific action ('Get') and resource ('Parallels RAS support information'), listing concrete data points like contact details, version, build number, and support entitlement. It distinguishes this tool from siblings (e.g., ras_farm_get_version) by focusing on support-specific information rather than general farm version details.

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 provides three use cases: 'check the installed RAS version', 'verify support status', and 'gather information for a support ticket'. This gives clear guidance on when to use this tool, differentiating it from alternatives like ras_farm_get_version which might only provide version data without support context.

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