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

Annotations already establish the read-only, idempotent, non-destructive profile, and the description adds real behavioral context: perturbations are hypothetical rather than new data, non-convergence is inconclusive rather than failure, and none_found only covers the examined cases. It stops short of describing runtime cost or limits beyond the case count.

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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the precondition and the interpretation caveats. Every sentence carries distinct information with no padding.

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?

Given a complex nested schema and an output schema that covers returns, the description adequately conveys the hypothetical framing and result-interpretation caveats, but leaves the five required parameters largely unguided.

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?

Coverage is reported at 0% for five required top-level parameters; the description hints at the case count (1–32) and the hypothetical flag, but the claim, bounds, and observations structures are left entirely to the schema. It does not compensate for the documentation gap.

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 (refit) and resource (declared hypothetical angular/clock perturbations) with a stated goal: challenging reconstruction stability. The scope '1–32' and 'No new observations' further distinguish it from ingest-style siblings like assimilate_observation, though no sibling is named 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?

Implies the context (stability stress-testing against perturbations) and states a hard prerequisite ('Explicit hypothetical acknowledgement required'), but never names when to choose this over alternatives such as analyze_kinematics or assimilate_observation.

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