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

Despite having only readOnlyHint=true annotation, the description reveals behavioral traits: it runs multiple analyses, auto-rejects stubs, generates several output components, and uses Claude. It adds context about the single-call nature without contradicting the read-only annotation.

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?

Four dense sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by capabilities, replacement note, and input/output. No fluff, every sentence 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?

Given the 13-parameter schema with full descriptions and an output schema, the description's summary of inputs/outputs and its explicit replacement guidance make it complete. It covers the tool's role and helps avoid unnecessary multi-tool calls.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds the default tone (forensic) and a high-level input list (title, audience, themes, archives, period, tone), which provides a convenient summary beyond the schema's individual field descriptions.

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 opens with 'Single-call forensic colour brief generator' and enumerates specific capabilities (coverage gap analysis, anachronism checks, claim role scoring, etc.), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like coverage_gap and archive_report_brief by stating it replaces chaining them separately.

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 explicitly states 'This replaces chaining coverage_gap + archive_report_brief + anachronism_guard + resonance_index + evidence_gap separately,' which tells the agent when to use this tool instead of multiple alternatives. It also lists input fields and tone options for context.

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