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

The description directly contradicts the annotations. It claims 'Read-only; never executes or sends code' and 'It writes NOTHING', while annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true. This is a serious inconsistency that could lead an agent to misjudge the tool's safety profile, despite the description adding otherwise useful behavioral context such as the draft-then-ratify flow.

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 long and has some redundancy—'It writes NOTHING' and 'Read-only' repeat the same idea. However, it is front-loaded with the core action and each paragraph adds distinct information (precondition, routing, approval). It is not poorly structured but would benefit from tightening.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers prerequisites, behavioral boundaries, approval requirements, and downstream consumers. It is fairly complete for an agent to invoke correctly, though it could describe the shape of the drafted capability list.

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 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents companyId well. The description adds context about the company repo connection but does not add meaning to the parameter itself beyond what the schema states. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the parameter semantics.

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 scans connected source code and drafts a capability list of shipped features (with file citations) and attempted limits for operator ratification. It distinguishes itself from ratify_capability by noting that only operator-ratified items become authoritative, so an agent can tell its role apart from siblings.

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 explicit routing: use it when the operator wants to pull product features from code instead of typing them. It also provides a prerequisite (connect the company repo via the GetFreedomOS GitHub App) and notes the sensitive-tier approval requirement, giving clear when-to-use and when-to-expect-restrictions guidance.

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