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

With no annotations and no output schema, the description carries the disclosure burden well: it enumerates what comes back, states 'Deterministic, no LLM', and warns that retention/compliance figures are common-practice defaults to verify with counsel. Only idempotency/rate-limit behavior is left unstated, which matters little for a stateless generator.

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 deliverable list and the input requirement are front-loaded, and every clause (outputs, implementability, determinism, legal caveat) carries distinct information. No redundant restatement of the tool name.

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?

Without an output schema, the description's enumeration of return contents is exactly what an agent needs, and the determinism plus legal caveat cover trust concerns. The one hole is the unexplained 'stack' parameter.

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%: 'features' and 'description' are documented in the schema, and 'compliance' is self-documenting via its enum. The description adds that compliance targets are optional but never explains 'stack', leaving one parameter undocumented in both places. Baseline 3 fits when the schema does most of the work.

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?

A specific verb (Generate) plus a precise resource (concrete audit-logging spec) and an enumerated set of deliverables: event catalog, envelope schema, storage plan, compliance notes. No sibling could be confused with this one — log_analyzer analyzes logs while this produces a spec.

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?

Clearly frames the call as 'POST your feature list (and optional compliance targets)' and states the outcome is directly implementable by a dev team. Use context is clear, but there are no explicit exclusions or named alternatives.

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