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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that this is a metadata view of a corpus, but it does not discuss prerequisites, data freshness, pagination, or whether the corpus must already be loaded.

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 definition is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. The only slight weakness is the abstract phrase 'design step's view,' which is compact but less immediately operational than a direct verb phrase.

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?

With an output schema present and full schema description coverage, the description need not restate return values or parameter details. However, it gives little workflow context beyond 'design step' and does not explain what happens when optional inputs are omitted.

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%, and the schema richly documents _files, _subject, and sequences, so parameter meaning is already carried by structured data. The description does not map its returned fields to those inputs or clarify their roles, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 gives a specific resource, a discovery corpus, and states the returned content: record name, file, length, GC fraction, and per-file record counts. It is distinguishable from generic project-description siblings by the 'discovery corpus' scope, though it does not explicitly name an alternative.

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?

The phrase 'The design step's view' only weakly implies context; there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no comparison to related tools such as describe_project or record_composition.

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