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

Annotations already establish read-only and idempotent behavior. The description adds valuable context by specifying output (health verdicts with advice) and highlighting that it catches joint conflicts that pairwise checks miss, going beyond 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?

Two sentences, no fluff or redundancy. First sentence states the core purpose, second enumerates output specifics. Every word earns its place.

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?

Given no output schema, the description adequately explains return values (verdicts and advice). Parameter relationships are handled by schema, and annotations cover safety. Minor gap: no differentiation from related validation tools, but this is not essential for invoking the tool.

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 descriptions cover 100% of parameters, including the distinction between config and blueprint. The description itself adds no parameter-specific meaning, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

Description states a specific verb+resource: 'Static pre-deploy analysis of a Blueprint's rule set', and enumerates concrete health verdict categories (healthy, acceptable, fragile, etc.). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like validate or check_drift, which have different purposes.

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 phrase 'pre-deploy' implies usage context, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like validate or profile_blueprint_robustness. No exclusions or alternative tools are mentioned, leaving usage largely implied.

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