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

The description goes well beyond the annotations: it discloses idempotency ('re-adopting refreshes the copy'), billing behavior ('Runs bill YOUR allowance, never the creator's'), auth requirements ('Requires Authorization: Bearer <JWT>'), return contents, and rendering conditions for dashboard/app output. No annotation contradiction exists.

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 long but every sentence adds operational value: prerequisites, idempotency, return values, billing, auth, and rendering behavior. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and avoids 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?

With no output schema and minimal annotations, the description carries the full burden and succeeds. It covers how to find inputs, what the call returns, how to run the adopted rig afterward, auth requirements, billing implications, idempotency, and output rendering rules — everything an agent needs 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 coverage is 100% and both parameters are already described, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by explaining that provider_id and external_id are obtained via registry_search and that the listing must satisfy a metadata.rig skeleton condition, giving the agent more context than the schema alone.

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 states a specific action ('materialize YOUR OWN runnable copy of any published rig listing') tied to a clear resource. It also sets itself apart from siblings by naming registry_search as the lookup step and by distinguishing adoption from execution over the run stream.

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 explicit prerequisites ('find provider_id + external_id via registry_search; the listing must carry a metadata.rig skeleton') and the follow-up path ('execute it over the run stream with user_context.rig_id and run_input'). It does not explicitly name alternatives like rig_run or rig_get, but the usage context is clear enough.

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