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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to restate the safe read-only nature. The description adds context by enumerating what the schema contains (required fields, recommended fields, accepted artifacts, safety notes). However, it stops short of disclosing deeper behavioral traits like authentication needs, rate limiting, or error behavior, and 'evidence-safe' itself is never explained. 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?

A single sentence that front-loads the verb and resource before enumerating contents—efficient and well-structured. The only flaw is the modifier 'evidence-safe,' which is stylistically extraneous yet unexplained, slightly muddying an otherwise crisp description.

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 the strong supporting context—comprehensive readOnly/idempotent annotations, 100% parameter documentation, and a declared output schema—the description is largely sufficient. The tool's contract is well-covered by the combination of fields. The primary gap remains the undefined 'evidence-safe' terminology and the absence of a pointer to sibling tools for related lookups, but overall the description is complete for this tool's simple read-only contract.

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%, as the schema thoroughly documents both parameters: identifier is described as 'Category code, fabrication-process slug, or fabrication-process ID' with min/max length, and type explains it is for 'disambiguation when an identifier could exist in both namespaces.' The description's mention of 'configurable supply category or fabrication process' parallels the schema's enum but adds no new parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 ('Read') and a specific resource ('the evidence-safe input schema for a configurable supply category or fabrication process'), which clearly distinguishes this getter from sibling tools like get_bom or get_project. It also previews the schema contents (required fields, recommended fields, accepted artifacts, safety notes). The term 'evidence-safe' is a genuine ambiguity—unexplained jargon—that prevents a perfect score.

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 usage guidance is provided relative to alternatives such as get_connection_guide, get_compatibility, or get_sourcing_request. There is no 'use this when,' no 'for X use Y instead,' and no mention of prerequisites or exclusions. The only implicit hint is in the 'type' parameter's disambiguation note, which is parameter-level context rather than tool-level guidance.

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