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

Annotations only cover safety/provenance (readOnly, idempotent, closed-world). The description adds real behavioral context an agent cannot get elsewhere: outputs are economics BANDS not point prices, deltas are relative to a base profile, results must be relayed as written, and risk flags are generic readiness items rather than provider appetite. This is exactly the extra context the dimension rewards.

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 trigger and purpose are correctly front-loaded, but the body is padded with redundant compliance repetition - the prohibition on naming providers/banks/acquirers appears twice in near-identical wording, as does the bands-not-prices rule. Roughly half the text is reiteration rather than new information.

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 14-parameter tool with nested objects and no output schema, the description does describe the return contents (architecture deltas, economics bands, risk deltas, sequence), which is valuable. However, the parameter layer is only half-covered and the description never explains base-vs-variation inheritance beyond repeating the schema note, leaving real 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 description coverage is 50%, so some compensation is needed. The description supplies useful examples of variation labels ('add US market', 'move to 60% crypto', 'double volume') and confirms the 'up to four' variation cap, but it does not clarify major base-profile parameters such as payment_mix, current_setup, or monthly_volume_eur, and it restates rather than extends the schema's 'only fields that differ' note.

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 ('compare ... scenarios ... returns what changes') and clearly scopes the output to deltas only ('Full designs are not repeated - only the differences against the base'). This implicitly separates it from design_stack, though no sibling is named outright.

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?

Gives a concrete, observable trigger ('Call this whenever the user asks what changes if something about their business changes - a new market, a different mix, more volume') plus a workflow position ('Architect step 3'). No when-not condition or named alternative is offered, so it stops short of a 5.

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