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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds useful behavior beyond annotations: it explains tree composition, mounted fragment inclusion, owner assignment, and historical version-vector semantics.

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 and front-loads the main composition behavior. The version-vector sentence is dense but earns its place by clarifying historical resolution semantics.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value details need not be repeated, and annotations cover safety. However, for a nested three-parameter tool, the description omits routing guidance and does not clarify the required schemaKey or companyId parameters, leaving meaningful gaps.

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 coverage is 67%, so the schema provides some structure but not complete semantic meaning. The description adds meaning for versionVector behavior, but it does not explain the required schemaKey or optional companyId beyond what the schema wrapper names already convey.

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 states a specific verb and resource: compose a record type's tree with mounted fragments and node owners. It distinguishes the operation from simple schema retrieval, but it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives such as schema_get_schema_definition.

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 implies a historical-version use case through the version vector note, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-tool guidance. An agent must infer when this should be selected over schema_get_schema_definition or schema_get_schema_version.

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