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

The description adds the verified/typechecked behavior ("Every snippet is typechecked against the installed nifra version") and the return format ("Returns code as TEXT for direct use"), which complements the readOnlyHint=true annotation. It doesn't fully detail pagination or grouping behavior, but the annotations cover the read-only safety profile. Solid transparency above the annotation baseline.

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 dense but efficient, front-loading the core purpose in the first sentence and covering usage, alternatives, return format, and query semantics in a compact paragraph. Every sentence earns its place with actionable information.

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 text-returning search tool with no output schema and full param coverage, the description adequately covers what's returned (code as TEXT), how to use it (with/without query), and when to prefer it (verified vs from-memory). Slightly more on the grouped index structure could help, but this is largely complete for its complexity.

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%, so both parameters (limit, query) are documented in the schema. The description adds example query values ("protected route", "upload", "isr revalidate") and clarifies the omit-query-for-index behavior, which is marginal value over the schema but not substantial. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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+resource ("Get a VERIFIED, copy-pasteable nifra code example") and lists concrete task categories (auth route, file upload, ISR page, etc.). It clearly distinguishes from siblings by naming nifra_gallery as the visual alternative and emphasizing this tool returns text for direct use.

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 says "PREFER THIS over writing nifra code from memory (training data drifts)", giving strong when-to-use guidance. It also names the alternative nifra_gallery for visual browsing and explains the call-with-no-query vs pass-query distinction. This is exemplary usage guidance.

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