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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive and closed-world, so the description's real contribution is the warning that provider record text is untrusted data rather than instructions — a security trait not derivable from structured fields. It also names the target API scope. It does not describe result shape or failure modes, but an output schema exists.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and its outputs. The API and documentation lines are useful but slightly compressed into reference fragments rather than prose.

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?

Output schema covers return values and annotations cover safety, but the meaning and optionality of `module` remain unexplained, leaving a gap for an agent deciding whether to pass it.

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 single `module` parameter has 0% schema description coverage and is never mentioned in the description, so the agent cannot tell what a module is, whether omitting it is safe, or what values are valid. With one undocumented parameter the description fails to compensate.

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?

"Report registered request schema coverage and unresolved legacy contracts" states a specific verb and two concrete resources, which distinguishes it from generic siblings like system_inventory or system_audit. It stops short of explicit sibling differentiation.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not guidance is given relative to closely named siblings such as system_audit, system_describe, or system_inventory. The doc pointers (/mcp, smartshifts://policy) gesture at context but do not tell the agent when this tool is the right choice.

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