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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, covering the safety profile. The description adds a little context (versioned, non-negotiable) but does not disclose any additional behavioral traits like rate limits, caching, or error conditions. With annotations present, this is adequate but not rich.

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?

One sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and key objects, and contains no fluff. It says exactly what is returned and the context, making it highly efficient.

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 no-parameter, read-only tool with rich annotations, the description is mostly complete. It states the return content generically ('versioned machine schema and non-negotiable ranking rules') but does not detail the output format or structure. Since there is no output schema, a slight elaboration on the return shape could help, but the tool is simple enough that the description suffices.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. Nothing to document, and the description does not attempt to describe any parameters. It correctly stays silent on this dimension.

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 states a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('versioned machine schema and non-negotiable ranking rules'), and anchors it to the Faceabot prototype. This distinguishes it from generic schema tools like get_capacity_exchange_schema, though it does not explicitly name a sibling.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_capacity_exchange_schema, get_exchange_protocol, or get_rosette_policy. The description implies it is for Faceabot-specific schema needs but never states the selection context or exclusion criteria.

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