axint.suggest

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds valuable context: 'local mode is read-only; Pro mode may call Axint endpoint when credentials are configured.' This goes beyond annotations to explain the tool's behavior in different modes. No contradiction found.

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 a single paragraph that efficiently covers purpose, behavior, and usage guidelines. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and provides important caveats without being verbose. Minor improvement could be clearer separation of sections.

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 10 parameters (1 required) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers what the tool returns (ranked list of features) and provides usage context. It lacks details on error handling or rate limits, but annotations sufficiently cover safety. Overall, it is complete enough for an agent to use 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema for several parameters: 'mode' explains local deterministic vs pro/ai authentication, 'platform' tailors for AI mode, 'goals' and 'stage' specify Pro mode usage. This additional context justifies an above-baseline score, though not all parameters are enhanced.

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 'Suggest Apple-native features for an app based on its description' which is a specific verb+resource. It also distinguishes from siblings by noting 'not a substitute for registry search or validation' and provides a clear use case ('use before generation to choose Apple surfaces').

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 includes explicit guidance: 'Use: use before generation to choose Apple surfaces; not a substitute for registry search or validation.' It also explains that 'domain is only a weak hint; the app description wins,' clarifying parameter priority. This leaves no ambiguity about when and how to use this tool.

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