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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the default limit and API-key scoping, but does not explicitly mention side effects (though 'retrieve' implies read-only), return format, or error handling. Some behavioral context exists but it is not comprehensive.

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 one sentence, front-loaded with the primary action, and contains no unnecessary words. It is appropriately concise.

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 read tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and default value. Missing return format and error handling, but the tool's simplicity makes this acceptable.

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?

The single parameter 'limit' has 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate. The phrase 'default 10' connects the parameter to the number of intercepts, but it does not explicitly explain the parameter's purpose beyond what the schema already provides (type, min, max, default).

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 uses a specific verb 'retrieve' and resource 'latest intercepts', and identifies the scope (Gateplex project tied to API key). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools 'log_intercept' (writing) and 'check_guardrails' (checking).

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?

Clear context is provided: this tool retrieves data for the project tied to the API key. It does not explicitly state exclusions or alternatives, but the verb 'retrieve' naturally differentiates it from sibling tools like 'log_intercept'.

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