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

Annotations already mark it read-only, and the description adds meaningful behavioral detail: the overview contains only the first two traps per area, while passing an area returns full trap lists and module recipes. This clarifies an important limitation an agent could not infer from the schema alone.

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 every sentence earns its place: the imperative call-first rule, the tool's purpose, the module-name warning, and parameter behavior. It is front-loaded and structured, though slightly long-winded in the middle.

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 an orientation tool with one optional parameter, no output schema, and a read-only annotation, the description covers what an agent needs: when to call it, what it contains, why it is necessary, and how to use 'area' to get deeper details. Nothing critical is missing for correct invocation.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema already documents the 'area' parameter and its allowed values. The description adds extra meaning by explaining that omitting it yields the overview and that passing it returns that area's modules, gotchas, recipes, and full trap list, going beyond the schema's basic wording.

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 is explicit: this is an orientation map of the whole Admin API, with platform-wide conventions, six task areas, and first-call recommendations. It clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling operation tools by saying it must be called first and that module names alone are misleading.

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?

It gives an explicit ordering instruction: 'CALL THIS FIRST, before any other tool.' It also tells the agent when to pass 'area' versus omit it, and warns that routing by module name fails, which is direct guidance for choosing this tool over searching or invoking operations directly.

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