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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavioral context by detailing the two rendering modes, the line of interaction, and side-by-side ideal-state output. It does not contradict any annotation and provides meaningful beyond-annotation detail.

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 one comprehensive paragraph that front-loads the core purpose, then systematically explains modes and options. It uses numbered modes and parenthetical examples for clarity. Every sentence contributes substantive information without unnecessary fluff.

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 the tool's complexity (nested objects, dual modes, optional ideal-state) and the absence of an output schema, the description covers the essential usage rules and output format (self-contained HTML page). It clarifies the two-actor conditional based on `actors` presence and the side-by-side ideal-state feature. Some depth (e.g., exact rendering details) is left to the schema, but the description is adequate for agent selection and 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%, so parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description adds relational meaning (e.g., how `actors` switches layout, how `ideal` activates side-by-side) that goes beyond individual parameter descriptions. It explains the semantic difference between single-actor and two-actor usage, which the schema alone does not convey.

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 renders a service blueprint as a self-contained HTML page, specifying two distinct modes (classic Shostack and two-actor HI-loop) with concrete examples (customer ↔ lawyer, etc.). This is a specific verb+resource+output format and clearly differentiates from sibling audit/get/list tools.

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 explains when to use each mode (e.g., 'when `actors` is supplied, renders two swim lanes') and the optional ideal-state side-by-side rendering. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use the tool, but the context makes it clear this is a generation tool distinct from audits and knowledge lookups.

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