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

The description explicitly states 'zero storage engine side effects' and 'pure mathematical verification layout', which informs the agent that this tool is safe and non-destructive. With no annotations, this disclosure is valuable. However, it does not mention whether the tool is computationally expensive or if it modifies any state.

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 two sentences, but the second sentence partially repeats the first. It could be more concise. For example, 'Guarantees memory safety by analyzing loop boundaries and array offsets' would be shorter while preserving meaning.

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?

The tool has no output schema, but the description does not explain what the tool returns. The agent is left guessing: are boundaries returned as a list, a report, or printed? Also, there is no mention of error conditions or expected input complexity. This gap reduces completeness.

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?

The input schema's description of 'source_code' is generic, but the tool description adds meaning by specifying that it analyzes loop control variables and array offsets. This helps the agent understand what kind of code is expected. With 100% schema coverage, baseline is 3, and the additional context warrants a 4.

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 purpose: performing AST constraint mapping and numerical array index fuzzing to extract boundary execution limits. The verb 'performs' and specific resources (AST, array indexes) make it unambiguous. It also differentiates from siblings (compute_kinematics, quantize_tensors) by focusing on boundary analysis.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, context, or when not to use it. For example, it could state that this tool is for static analysis of loop boundaries and should not be used for runtime checks.

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