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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, non-destructive, and idempotent behavior. The description adds genuinely new context: the plan never claims execution or verification, an immutable receipt is stored, and one logical determination is metered. That is useful behavior beyond the annotations, though it doesn't disclose what the receipt contains or what gets returned.

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 tight sentences, no filler. The first sentence states the purpose, the second the non-claim scope, and the third distinguishes storage/metering from execution. Naturally front-loaded.

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 complex tool with a nested schema and an output schema, the description covers scope and side effects but omits workflow positioning relative to its three siblings and does not explain what the plan output looks like. The output schema fills some of that gap, but the routing context is missing.

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 coverage is 50%, and the description adds essentially no information about the 'request' or 'idempotency_key' parameters. The rich nested schema descriptions carry the semantic load; the description only adds the abstract notion of 'evidence-preserving', which loosely maps to the evidence field.

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 and artifact — 'produce a bounded, evidence-preserving repair plan for an integrity failure' — which is distinct from the sibling fahce_integrity_repair_bundle. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast itself against fahce_diagnose_integrity or fahce_verify_repaired_output, so the reader has to infer the boundary between planning, diagnosis, and verification.

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 implies a use case ('for an integrity failure') but never states when to choose this over fahce_diagnose_integrity or fahce_verify_repaired_output, nor when a caller should not use it. With three sibling tools and no routing language, an agent must guess where this fits in the workflow.

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