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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds meaningful behavior: it reads a specific file, flags changes needing code edits, and explicitly avoids touching customer screens. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 three sentences and front-loads the core purpose. Minor extras like 'PAID.' and the closing summary add slight fluff but do not obscure the key information. It is well-structured and readable.

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 reporting tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description covers the mechanism, scope, and parameter conditions. It does not specify the return structure, but given the read-only nature and the statement 'returns only what moved,' the agent has enough to call it. Internal terms like 'split-unverified' are referenced in parameter descriptions, so context is sufficient.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds conditional usage for all three parameters: 'current' only when a split-unverified blocker asks, 'manifest' as the parsed files.json, and 'acceptSplit' only after customer agreement. This conditional context goes beyond the schema and is valuable for correct invocation.

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 reports what changed in opointo-supplied files since export and returns only what moved, distinguishing it from siblings like install_component or get_component. The verb-resource pair ('reports changes in supplied files') is specific and unambiguous, and the closing line ('This is how the components and app shell we supplied stay current') reinforces the purpose.

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?

It explains the tool reads .opointo/files.json, requires no share code, works months later, and never touches customer screens—giving clear context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, leaving the agent to infer from sibling names.

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