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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavioral context by specifying the returned data (health score, contradiction list, Merkle proof), which goes beyond the annotations. However, it doesn't disclose any potential limitations or edge cases, but for a read-only operation this is acceptable.

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 a single, information-dense sentence that front-loads the tool's purpose and outputs. There is zero waste; every word adds value. It names the tool, its function, and the exact return types without elaboration.

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?

For a simple read-only inspector with no output schema, the description adequately conveys what it returns. It does not explain the relationship between the optional 'files' and 'repoId' parameters, but the schema descriptions cover that. The tool is simple enough that nothing critical is missing, though a note on when to use each parameter would improve completeness.

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% (both 'files' and 'repoId' have descriptions), so the schema fully documents the parameters. The description adds no additional meaning about these parameters, such as how they interact or which takes precedence. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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 clearly states the tool is an inspector for the Drift Score Index, and specifies the exact outputs: health score (0.0-100.0), contradiction list, and Merkle proof receipt. This is specific and distinguishes it from the sibling context_sanitizer_verify_scope, which likely handles verification rather than inspection.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of when to choose it over context_sanitizer_verify_scope or any other sibling, nor any context about prerequisites or typical scenarios. The tool's name and description imply usage for getting a DSI, but explicit usage guidance is absent.

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