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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds behavioral context by stating it returns a 'cited suite plan' and explaining the include_references default. It does not contradict annotations. Could mention more about error cases, but the output schema likely covers return details.

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 tightly structured: a two-sentence overview explaining purpose and output, followed by a compact parameter list. Every sentence adds value, and there is no unnecessary repetition or 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, the description covers purpose, return value, parameter semantics, and the connection to generate_tests. With annotations and an output schema present, it doesn't need to detail every edge case. Minor gaps like handling no-matching results, but overall quite complete.

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 0%, so the description's Args section carries all parameter meaning. It explains all 4 parameters with examples (spec_base, keyword), defaults (include_references, limit), and constraints (max: 50). This goes well beyond the bare schema titles.

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 function: 'Assemble the normative requirements for one procedure across a spec AND the specs it normatively references.' It uses specific verbs and identifies the resource, and the cross-spec scope distinguishes it from siblings like get_requirements and get_spec_references.

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 explains the rationale for using this tool ('a procedure like registration or handover is never described in a single document') and gives downstream guidance ('feed the requirement_ids to generate_tests'). However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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