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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent, closed-world behavior. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: it compiles an artifact, the runner hash seeds the output, and refusal returns the next required move. It does not detail permissions or reversibility, but the annotated safety profile plus the stated gate behavior covers the key traits.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core compile action and followed by refusal handling. The jargon is dense but every clause carries information; no filler.

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 no output schema, the description still explains the produced artifact (cubicle.script v1), its grading role, and what a refusal result contains. For a one-parameter workflow tool this is close to complete, though it could clarify where the compiled script goes or whether the call is repeatable.

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 100% for the single 'intent' parameter, so the schema already defines it well. The description refers to compiling 'the trader's strategy' but does not add syntax or content guidance beyond the schema's own 'rule in the trader's words' description.

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?

States a specific verb ('compiles') and resource ('trader's strategy' into 'cubicle.script v1'), and situates it as one of the studio machine's moves, which helps distinguish it from related siblings like studio_move. The heavy domain jargon ('gates the tape can measure', 'reader gate') slightly blurs the purpose for an outside agent.

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?

Explicitly states the prerequisite gates (READ, CLARIFIED, EXPRESSIBLE) and what to do on refusal, giving clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use context. It does not name alternative sibling tools to use instead, but the workflow condition is unambiguous.

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