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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior: the Gain ≠ Loss interaction (removing one interrupt lets others fire more often) and the anti-fabrication requirement to quote engine output verbatim. However, its chapter-availability claim ('Available on bs1-leds, bs3-leds, bs4-ct, bs4-leds') conflicts with the schema enum, which accepts all ten chapters, creating a behavioral contradiction about which inputs are valid.

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 core mechanism is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by trigger questions and a targeted anti-fabrication note, all of which earn their place. Some phrasing ('Reveals the ACTUAL impact', the all-caps emphasis) is stylistic padding but does not obscure the use case.

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 one-parameter, no-output-schema tool the description conveys enough: what is computed, what the results represent (per-interrupt recovered production), and how to report them. The gap is the unresolved chapter availability mismatch, which could cause an agent to reject valid enum values or call with an unsupported one.

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 100%, and the enum description already explains ct vs leds tracks, so the schema does the heavy lifting and baseline 3 applies. The description does not explain the chapter parameter at all, and its narrower availability list disagrees with the enum's ten options, adding ambiguity rather than meaning.

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 concrete verb+resource and the mechanism: 'disable each interrupt one at a time, measure production recovered,' which tells an agent this is a per-failure-mode removal experiment rather than a generic report. It doesn't explicitly name how it differs from sibling tools like find_bottleneck or run_buffer_tradeoff, so differentiation is inferred from the example questions rather than stated.

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 gives three concrete trigger questions ('what if we fixed X?', 'which interrupt matters most if we actually fixed it?', 'show me the Pareto') that clearly delimit when this tool is right. It stops short of naming alternatives or stating when NOT to use it, which is why it isn't a 5.

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