Tool documentation

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lowered, and the description still adds useful facts: no API call, static text, about 1ms, and that it surfaces limits and irreversible actions. It does not mention caching, session scope persistence, or error behavior for a bad tool name, keeping it below a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the core instruction and rationale, and each sentence contributes either a usage rule or a cost/benefit claim. It is slightly longer than strictly needed for a one-parameter meta-tool, with a touch of persuasive framing, but no sentence is pure filler.

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 low-complexity meta-tool with rich annotations and no output schema, the description covers what it returns (argument semantics, limits, irreversible actions, alternatives), when to call it, and its cost profile. An agent has everything needed to invoke it 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 description coverage is 100% and there is a single required 'tool' parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description's 'Pass the tool name exactly as listed' merely reinforces the schema's own wording rather than adding new syntax or format detail.

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?

States a specific verb and resource — 'Read the full documentation of one tool' — and explains its role relative to the rest of the tool list. It does not, however, explicitly distinguish itself from sibling help/meta tools such as qase_discover_tools or qql_help, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

Gives a clear activation condition: read it before calling a tool for the first time in a session, which implies it is unnecessary on subsequent calls. It also frames the value proposition against blindly calling a tool ('Cheaper than one rejected call'), but names no alternative meta-tool to use in other situations.

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