Describe topic

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the specific information returned, but provides no additional behavioral context such as error cases, prerequisites, or output 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?

The description is a single compact sentence that front-loads the key data points returned by the tool. There is no filler, repetition, or unnecessary detail.

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, one-parameter, read-only tool with rich annotations, the description is adequate. It lists the main output contents and the required input, and it does not need to explain complex return types since no output schema exists.

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 only one parameter, topic, and the schema already describes it as 'Topic name' with 100% coverage. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the input schema provides, so the baseline score 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 clearly identifies the output of the tool: partitions, replicas, in-sync replicas, and non-default configs for a topic. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_topics or topic_offsets, though it lacks an explicit verb and relies on the title 'Describe topic' for the action.

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 implies usage for inspecting a single topic's metadata by enumerating the returned attributes, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives such as list_topics or describe_consumer_group. No exclusions or routing guidance is provided.

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