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

Annotations include readOnlyHint=true, so the description doesn't need to repeat that. It adds useful behavioral details beyond annotations: it 'runs coverage gap analysis, pulls best archive colours, checks for anachronisms, scores claim roles, auto-rejects stubs, generates... via Claude.' This discloses the computational pipeline and dependencies. It also notes tone options and the 'auto-rejects stubs' behavior. Not everything is fully detailed (e.g., what 'auto-rejects' entails), but it adds meaningful context.

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 concise and front-loaded, with the purpose in the first sentence, followed by what it does, what it replaces, and input/output. It is a bit dense with many clauses, but every sentence adds value. It avoids fluff and maintains clear structure.

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 (13 parameters, pipeline of analyses, external Claude call), the description covers the key contextual points: what it does, what it replaces, input/output, tone options, and the fact that it is a single-call package. With an output schema present, it doesn't need to detail return values. It could mention edge cases or requirements for the 'auto-rejects stubs' behavior, but current level is adequate for an agent to select and invoke 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add significant new parameter semantics; it summarizes input as 'title, audience, themes, archives, period, tone,' which maps to existing schema fields but doesn't clarify the relationship between 'period' and the three period-related parameters (period_start, period_end, target_period). Tone options listed in the description duplicate schema values. Overall, no new insight beyond structured data.

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 and clear purpose: 'Single-call forensic colour brief generator.' It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly stating it replaces chaining several other tools (coverage_gap, archive_report_brief, anachronism_guard, resonance_index, evidence_gap). This makes the tool's unique role unambiguous.

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?

Usage guidance is explicit: 'This replaces chaining coverage_gap + archive_report_brief + anachronism_guard + resonance_index + evidence_gap separately.' This tells the agent exactly when to use this tool instead of alternatives. It also clarifies it is a single-call comprehensive generator, and lists input and output expectations.

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