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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context beyond those: it clarifies this is a catalog lookup against the 'LIVE MCP catalog' and explicitly says 'this tool does not write files,' reinforcing the non-mutating behavior in a way that is directly relevant to the invention-use case.

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 reasonably scannable and front-loaded, but it repeats the same example list ('glossary, wiki, memory store, voice pack, task list') in both the opening paragraph and the Routing section. The core guidance is clear, but the redundancy makes it less tight than it could be.

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 simple optional-parameter read-only tool with strong annotations and full schema coverage, the description covers when to call it, what it returns ('what FreedomOS already offers... from the LIVE MCP catalog'), and the key behavioral caveat that it does not write files. No output schema exists, but the return purpose is sufficiently explained for an agent deciding to invoke this tool.

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 100%, and the schema already explains both optional parameters, including the 'job' field and companyId requirement. The description mainly restates the job concept but adds no new parameter-level semantics beyond what the input schema already documents, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 action with concrete examples: 'Before inventing a parallel glossary, wiki, memory store, voice pack, task list... call this. Returns what FreedomOS already offers for that job from the LIVE MCP catalog.' It clearly identifies the resource being checked and explains the unique pre-inventing role, distinguishing it from the many sibling 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 gives an explicit trigger condition ('before inventing... call before_inventing_check_fo FIRST') and adds a strong exclusionary rule ('Do not invent a second knowledge system'). It references FreedomOS's existing Knowledge/canon, voice, and work tools as alternatives, though it does not name specific sibling tool names explicitly.

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