Describe topic

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered elsewhere. The description adds the only behavioral-adjacent context: which fields are returned (partitions, replicas, ISR, non-default configs). It says nothing about error behavior for a nonexistent topic or response format.

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?

It is a single short fragment with no wasted words and the key content is front-loaded. However, it is a fragment rather than a sentence, so brevity comes at the cost of under-specification rather than deliberate conciseness.

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?

With no output schema, the description is the only source of return-value information, and it does list the main categories of data returned. It is still incomplete for a describe-style tool, omitting leader/replication details, config value semantics, and behavior when the topic does not exist.

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 is a single parameter, and schema description coverage is 100% ('Topic name'), so the schema fully documents it. The description adds no extra meaning about the topic identifier (e.g., naming conventions or whether it must already exist), so the baseline of 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 is a noun-phrase fragment that enumerates the payload contents (partitions, replicas, ISR, non-default configs) for a topic, which implies what the tool returns. It never states a verb or explicitly says it retrieves topic metadata, so the purpose is inferred rather than declared. It does at least distinguish itself from siblings like list_topics by being clearly per-topic detail.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as list_topics or topic_offsets. An agent must infer from the name and siblings when this tool is appropriate.

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