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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose a genuine trait beyond the schema: 'Rate-limited'. It also notes the free tier. But it says nothing about what the tool returns, latency, whether the call has side effects, or what happens on failure, leaving most behavioral questions unanswered.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loading the identity and tier before listing required inputs. No filler, though some phrases ('free-full demand probe') cost tokens without adding clarity.

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?

A 7-parameter tool with two enums, no output schema, and no annotations needs more than this. The description never explains the return artifact, the meaning of the autonomy/data_sensitivity enums, or the optional parameters, so an agent lacks enough to invoke it confidently.

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 only 43%, so the description needs to compensate, but it merely restates the four required inputs (URL, use case, autonomy, data sensitivity) without adding format, constraints, or meaning. The optional parameters (notify_email, idempotency_key, success_looks_like_plain) and their purpose are never mentioned.

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 names the artifact it produces ('Deployment Trust Radar packet') and its tier ('public free'), which does distinguish it from sibling radars like design_ux_radar_free and search_repair_radar_free by domain. However, it uses vague jargon ('packet', 'demand probe') and never states a concrete verb or what the agent actually gets back, so the purpose is only loosely inferable.

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 signals a free tier with 'no paid tier', which hints at when this is the right choice versus the *_paid siblings, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative. The agent must infer routing from the name alone.

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