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

Annotations already declare this as read-only and idempotent, so the description need not repeat that. The description adds that it returns an evidence chain and that it may produce 'no_evidence_available', which provides transparency about outcomes. However, it doesn't detail any system behavior beyond that, such as potential errors or response format nuances.

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 concise with approximately four sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and key parameters. It includes an example call, but the final sentence about 'Returns: Confidence metrics...' is somewhat redundant and could be trimmed for better conciseness.

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?

The description covers the main purpose and response shape, but given the complexity of federation contexts and the lack of an output schema, it could clarify edge cases like when 'no_evidence_available' occurs or how the chain is structured. It also references 'Phase A' without explaining it, leaving some ambiguity for new agents.

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 compensate. It explains node_kind enum values (artifact | tool | tenant) and node_id semantics (path | name | id), and mentions optional repo for scoping. However, it does not fully elaborate on each parameter's constraints or how they interact, especially the repo and node_id formats.

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 clearly states the tool returns a confidence number for a federation node, specifying the node_kind types. It distinguishes itself from siblings like introspection_system_list_nodes by referencing it as the source of valid node ids, but does not explicitly contrast with other introspection tools.

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 implies usage for querying confidence on nodes, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs others like introspection_system_probe or introspection_system_change_graph. It mentions 'repo' scoping for Phase A but lacks clear exclusions or alternatives.

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