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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It goes well beyond basic disclosure by explaining the counterintuitive Gain ≠ Loss interaction, emphasizing that numbers come from real dys-cli runs, and warning against fabrication ('ANTI-FABRICATION... Quote VERBATIM'). This gives the agent essential behavioral context.

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 well-structured with clear sections (purpose, availability, usage, anti-fabrication). Though longer than two sentences, every sentence adds value and the content is tightly packed without redundancy.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: what it does, the key insight, when to use it, where it applies, and a critical caution about fabrication. It leaves no significant gaps for an agent to operate correctly.

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?

The schema already provides a detailed description of the `chapter` parameter (100% coverage). The description adds important context by noting availability is restricted to four specific chapters (`bs1-leds`, `bs3-leds`, `bs4-ct`, `bs4-leds`), which is not obvious from the enum alone, giving extra semantics beyond the schema.

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's function: 'disable each interrupt one at a time, measure production recovered.' It also distinguishes itself from siblings by explaining the Gain ≠ Loss concept and specifying the exact use cases ('what if we fixed X?', 'which interrupt matters most if we actually fixed it?', 'show me the Pareto'), making it unique among the sibling tools.

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?

Explicit when-to-use guidance is provided: 'Use when the user asks...' and specific chapter availability is stated. However, it does not mention alternative tools or explicit when-not-to-use scenarios, so it stops short of a 5.

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