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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral facts: output is private plain text, the file content is returned without publishing, sharing, or storing, and the report is explicitly not a compliance certificate — meaningful expectations-setting beyond the structured hints.

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?

Two tight sentences: what it produces first, then the negative guarantees. Every clause carries information and nothing is repeated from the title or annotations.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value detail is not needed, and the description still tells the agent the result is file content rather than a stored artifact. The remaining gap is input provenance and validation — it never says where a valid snapshot comes from (e.g. inspect_runtime_consent) or that the schema enforces a rigid three-phase, fixed-method shape.

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 0% and there is one deeply nested required parameter, so the description must compensate. It partially does by naming the snapshot fields the report surfaces (date, method, phase results, limitations), but says nothing about the const method value, the exactly-three-phases constraint, the 2000ms window, or enum statuses — details the agent must dig out of the schema itself.

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 ('Formats a supplied RegSentry runtime snapshot as a private plain-text report') and enumerates what the report contains (date, method, phase results, limitations). It implicitly separates itself from interpretation-style siblings via the disclaimer about not producing a certificate or legal opinion, but never names a sibling explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: the phrase 'supplied ... snapshot' tells the agent it must already hold a snapshot, and the negative clauses rule out certification/legal-opinion use cases. There is no explicit 'use this instead of interpret_consent_evidence when...' routing, nor a pointer to which sibling produces the snapshot input.

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