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

Goes well past the annotations: it discloses that results are unmetered, that 'degraded' is a successful result rather than an error, that recent_changes covers the current window only, and it spells out the surface-hash staleness protocol including the _meta echo key. This is exactly the behavioral context annotations cannot convey.

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?

Return values are front-loaded and each sentence carries distinct information about the hash contract or status semantics. It runs long and mixes two topics (what it returns vs. the hash-caching protocol), but no sentence is 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?

An output schema exists, yet the description still supplies the interpretive layer an agent needs: what 'degraded' means, what the hash is for, and how staleness propagates across other tools. Nothing essential to calling or interpreting it is missing.

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 tool takes zero parameters, which sets the baseline at 4. The description even documents a protocol-level input mechanism (_meta["ai.finstat/surface-hash"]) not represented in the empty schema, adding meaning rather than duplicating it.

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 opens with a precise, enumerated statement of what the call returns (build identity, protocol posture, component/migration health, public-surface hash) rather than restating the name. It also scopes it explicitly with 'No workspace', which separates it from the workspace-scoped siblings that dominate the tool list.

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 a clear trigger ('Use it at startup'), a follow-up action ('call tools/list again' when a hash mismatch or surface_notice appears), and the echo mechanism for later calls. It does not explicitly contrast with the closest-looking sibling, inspect_mcp_connection, so an agent must infer which diagnostics tool to prefer.

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