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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine non-annotation context: the scoping to the current analysis, the identifier semantics of rowId, and the cross-tool coupling to request_matrix_changes via basis.originalRevision.

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?

Three short sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and no filler. The final sentence about basis.originalRevision is terse and slightly cryptic, but it carries real cross-tool value rather than padding.

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 read-only tool whose annotations cover safety and which has no output schema, the description is mostly adequate, but it introduces unexplained concepts (basis.originalRevision, 'current analysis') and says nothing about pagination or what a returned matrix row contains.

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 only 25%, so the description should compensate. It usefully disambiguates rowId ('identifies a matrix row, not a requirement'), and projectId is covered by the schema, but limit and offset ordering/pagination behavior remain undocumented in both places.

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 ('Read matrix rows') and scopes it to 'the current analysis', which an agent can act on. It does not name any sibling (e.g. build_compliance_matrix or request_matrix_changes) to sharpen the boundary, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 line 'Reuse basis.originalRevision when requesting changes' implies the read-then-request workflow but never states when to prefer this tool over alternatives. Usage is implied rather than explicit, and no when-not guidance is offered.

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