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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context that the tool is purely textual (no source connection needed) and that it reports name drift, but says nothing about limits such as the 12-source cap or what the flagged output includes.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and followed by the single invocation instruction. No filler; every clause earns its place.

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?

For a read-only analysis tool with no output schema, the description should ideally hint at what 'flags drift' returns and note the source limit. Annotations cover safety, but the result format and the 12-item cap remain unexplained.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must carry parameter meaning; it explains that the input is text from each surface, which clarifies the 'sources' array intent. It does not explain the required 'label' field or the maxItems=12 constraint, so it only partially compensates.

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 and resource ('finds concepts that carry different names across surfaces... flags drift') and enumerates the surfaces it compares, which is concrete enough to distinguish it from siblings like audit_copy or critique_experience. It does not explicitly name a sibling it is not, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

'Pass the text from each surface; nothing needs connecting' gives invocation context and reassures the agent that no upstream wiring is required. However, it gives no when-to-use versus alternatives (e.g. audit_copy) and no exclusions or prerequisites, so usage is only implied.

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