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

The description discloses the credit cost ('Costs 2 credits'), a behavioral trait not present in annotations. It also summarizes the return contents (severity, fix suggestions, confidence scores). This adds meaningful context beyond the annotations, which already indicate read-only and idempotent behavior, but the cost is an important non-obvious effect.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and includes the return format, cost, and a pointer to the sibling reporting tool. Every sentence contributes novel information with no redundancy.

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?

With a rich input schema, an output schema, and annotations, the description sufficiently covers the tool's behavior. It specifies when to use it, what it returns, and the associated cost, leaving no critical gaps for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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% for parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description does not elaborate on parameter usage beyond what the schema already provides; the only hint is the notion of 'task type' which is a schema field. No additional semantic clarification is offered.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Check for known failure patterns before executing a task type.' It also specifies the output ('pitfalls with severity, fix suggestions, and confidence scores'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like pitfalldb_report. This is a specific verb-resource pair with clear scope.

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 advises using the tool 'before executing a task type,' providing clear usage context. It also suggests the complement: 'After your agent runs, submit failures via pitfalldb_report.' While it does not mention all alternative tools, it gives a concrete usage pattern and a related action.

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