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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and a closed world, so safety behavior is covered. The description adds genuine non-obvious behavior: it preserves separate dates and unknowns and deliberately provides no overall ranking, which sets the agent's expectation for the result shape.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the verb and cardinality constraint, then parameter guidance, then output caveat. No filler.

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 format needn't be spelled out, and the description still adds the key expectation-setting facts (no ranking, preserved dates/unknowns). Complete enough to invoke correctly, with only minor omissions like result limits or latency.

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% so the baseline is 3, but the description exceeds it by naming the four questions (released code, GitHub, backend, database) that capability_ids select among, a detail the schema does not enumerate.

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 (compare) plus resource (covered app builders) and enumerates the four question areas, so the agent knows exactly what the tool produces and how it differs from the single-result get_finding and search_findings siblings.

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?

Gives clear operational guidance: specify capability IDs 'from coverage or search results, or omit them for all four questions', which routes the agent to the search flow and tells it omitting is valid. It does not explicitly state when not to use it versus the sibling tools, 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.