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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuine behavioral context the annotations don't: the free-tier truncation point, the requirement of a key for full output, and that no implementation is produced. These are real additions an agent needs.

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?

Front-loaded with a clear lane label, but it is dense with branded jargon ('SHPBL', 'DREAM, EVOLUTION, MEMORY, DEFENSE, BRAIN and the rest of the canonical forty', 'S-Tier artifacts') that consumes space without helping the agent decide or call. The routing and gating sentences do earn their place.

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?

With no output schema, the description must convey return shape, and it does: each nomination names host evidence, capability bodies, contract slots, a test plan, and honest limits, plus the distinction between free affordance output and paid nominations. Fairly complete, though the free-tier return shape could be described more concretely.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all seven parameters including defaults and ranges. The description adds no per-parameter meaning (e.g., how pages interacts with grants), so baseline 3 is correct.

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 (compose/offer nominations) and resource (repository capabilities), and explicitly distinguishes itself from harvest_repo: 'It contains no implementation; approved materialization belongs to `harvest_repo`.' The jargon ('harvest lane', 'canonical forty') adds opacity, but the core action and its boundary are unambiguous.

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?

Names the alternative (harvest_repo) and states the gating condition: free calls return affordances and stop before library correlation, while nominations require a Practitioner key. It clearly sets a context for use. It doesn't compare against other plausible siblings like evaluate_repo or build_intent, so it falls short of full when/when-not coverage.

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