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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this executes something non-idempotent without destroying data. The description usefully adds 'no rebuild' and that duration is quoted by path_resolver, but is silent on side effects of a rerun (new outputs? overwrites?) and on permissions.

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 compact sentences with zero filler; the core behavior and the 'no rebuild' constraint are front-loaded, and the timing note is a useful trailing pointer.

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?

Adequate for a 3-parameter execution tool with no output schema, but it leaves the outcome of a rerun and any permission or side-effect requirements unstated. The reference to path_resolver for duration partially compensates.

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 67%; dataset_ref and resolution_id are already documented in-schema (including the referenced path_input), while package_id is undocumented. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, so the 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?

States a specific verb+resource: 'Run a delivered analysis again' with the key qualifier 'same tools and mappings, no rebuild.' This distinguishes it from path_bespoke (which presumably builds something new), though it does not name that sibling explicitly.

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?

Implies when it applies via 'on its own dataset or a new one' and points to path_resolver for timing, but never states when to choose this over path_reuse, path_bespoke, or path_tool_run. Usage is inferred rather than specified.

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