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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, providing a safe behavioral profile. The description adds value by explaining that the tool does not rank models and returns 'inferred weights and the discovery-walk trace,' which are not covered by annotations. No contradictions, and it adds meaningful context beyond the structured fields.

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, front-loads the key action and differentiator, and includes the return value and use case. Every sentence provides essential information without redundancy or filler. Excellent structure for quick comprehension.

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 simplicity (1 parameter, no nested objects, annotations present, output schema exists), the description is complete. It explains the purpose, what it returns, and when to use it. The output schema covers return values, so the description does not need to elaborate further.

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%, with the input schema's description for 'purpose' already explaining the tool's function thoroughly. The overall description adds broader context but does not introduce new parameter-specific semantics beyond what is in the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description adds marginal extra value.

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 tool name 'discover' and title 'Discover quality dimensions' are clear. The description states a specific action: 'Show which quality dimensions matter for a stated purpose' and explicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like 'rank' by stating 'WITHOUT ranking any models.' This provides a clear understanding of the tool's unique role.

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 description says it's 'useful for understanding how XFMS interprets the purpose before committing to a pick,' implying use before ranking or picking. It distinguishes from siblings without explicit exclusions, but the context makes it clear that if you need actual rankings, you should use another tool. The lack of explicit when-not-to-use prevents a higher score.

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