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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful context: normalized output, the deprecated archetype field retained as a compatibility alias, and the clarification about Build Archetypes. No contradiction with annotations.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the operation and return values, followed by a useful caveat about the deprecated field. It is economical with no filler, though it could have used one sentence to map the schema parameters.

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?

There is no output schema and parameter coverage is low, so the description must carry more weight. It lists return fields, but it does not specify how to choose pillars versus codename, what window does, how cache parameters work, or how this differs from similar sibling tools. An agent would likely need to guess or open other tools to invoke this 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?

Schema coverage is only 17% (only codename has a description). The description mentions '4 token pillars or a codename' but never maps the four pillars to input, output, cache_read, and cache_write, and it does not explain the window parameter. It provides high-level framing but leaves actual parameter semantics ambiguous.

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 uses a specific verb ('Computes') and resource ('normalized operating signature') and enumerates the return fields. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish the tool from siblings like who_operates_like_me or get_sigrank_standard_record, and 'closest comparable operators' could overlap with who_operates_like_me.

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?

The description offers no explicit when-to-use guidance or named alternatives. It notes two input modes (pillars or codename) and a negative semantic boundary ('not the 10-type Build Archetypes reference extension'), but an agent choosing among 15 sibling tools gets little operational direction.

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