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

Annotations only declare the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, closed-world), and the description adds substantial context beyond that: it discloses the full return shape including held-out accuracy, per-answer recall, confusion pairs, the compiler's notes, and what the shim still needs before it can build. With no output schema, this disclosure is doing real work and reveals behavior an agent would otherwise have to discover empirically.

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?

Front-loaded with the payload contents, then a second sentence of prescriptive guidance. It is dense and the first sentence is a long enumeration, but every clause maps to a real part of the returned report, so little is wasted; a light trim would make it a 5.

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?

For a single-resource read with no output schema, the description fully covers what comes back, why to call it, and how to act on it. Parameters are covered by the schema and safety by the annotations, so nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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% — shimId is documented as coming from workbench_shim_list and workspace covers default/override semantics for personal vs API-key tokens. The description adds nothing about either parameter, 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?

The description opens with a specific scope statement, 'One shim in full,' and then enumerates exactly what a shim is composed of (the question, input sources, answers with descriptions/examples, build requirements, newest build report). This lets an agent distinguish it from siblings like workbench_shim_list (plural/roster) and the shim mutation tools (create/add_answer/add_examples) without opening a schema.

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 a clear usage trigger, 'Read it before writing examples,' and even prescribes what to do with the result ('match the setting and the existing examples' register,' target low-recall answers). That is strong when-to-use and workflow guidance, though it does not name the sibling action tool explicitly or state a when-not-to-use condition.

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