system

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and not destructive. The description adds that all operations are read-only and lists operations, but does not disclose other behavioral traits such as permission requirements or rate limits. Given high annotation coverage, description adds moderate context.

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?

Description is concise with sections for operations, args, and returns. It is front-loaded with the purpose. Minor improvement could be more structured formatting, but it earns its sentences.

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 complexity (multiple operations), presence of output schema, and good annotations, the description sufficiently explains the tool's behavior. It lists all operations and parameter usage, though could add details on response structure despite output schema.

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?

Parameter count is 2 and schema has 0% description coverage, so description must compensate. It explains that 'operation' is a choice from listed values and 'pk' is for get_user, providing meaning beyond the raw schema types.

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 it is for system administration and health checks, listing specific operations and stating they are read-only. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'part' and 'stock' by targeting system-level tasks.

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 use for system admin tasks but does not explicitly provide when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to sibling tools. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.

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