Naming convention (suggest / parse)

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint as true, and the description reinforces this by calling it a 'pure function', implying no side effects. It adds behavioral detail about how display names omit kind words for certain resource types, which goes beyond the annotations.

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 but packs substantial detail. It is front-loaded with the naming convention and action dispatch. While slightly long, each part earns its place.

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?

The description covers input semantics well but lacks detail on the output format (e.g., slug, tags, grade) and error conditions. Given the lack of an output schema, the description could be more complete about return values.

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?

Although parameter schema coverage is 100%, the description adds significant meaning by explaining scope codes (e.g., HC=healthcare), kind values, and the source facet. It clarifies how parameters interact (e.g., 'omit the kind word for certain resources'), which is beyond the schema alone.

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 defines the tool as a pure function for a naming convention with two specific actions: suggest (generates names) and parse (decomposes names). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by being a dedicated naming utility, not a general-purpose tool.

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 states when to use each action (suggest vs. parse) and advises preferring suggest over hand-naming. However, it does not provide explicit exclusions or when-not-to-use scenarios.

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