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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, but the description adds meaningful context: nothing is generated here, the caller's model does the writing, the prompt preserves the author's voice, and it forbids invented scores and facts. It also explains how verdicts affect targeting by weight. No behavior contradicts the 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 four sentences with no filler, and it front-loads the core concept before adding behavioral constraints. The phrase 'working order' is slightly opaque, but the following sentences resolve it efficiently.

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?

The description usefully conveys the tool's output role as a prompt for the caller's model, which matters because there is no output schema. Still, with 0% schema coverage across three parameters, it leaves directory_context unexplained and only indirectly implies the brief parameter, so the invocation context is not fully complete.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It explains the optional verdicts parameter and its with/without effect well, but it never explains the required brief parameter or the directory_context boolean, leaving two of three parameters under-specified.

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 identifies a specific artifact: an improvement prompt / working order for improving a brief with the caller's own model. Later sentences clarify that it produces instructions rather than generated content. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like get_judge_prompt or check_brief, so it is clear but not sibling-routing.

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?

It gives conditional usage for the verdicts parameter: pass existing verdicts to target failing rules in weight order, or omit them to walk every rule. However, it does not state when to choose this tool over get_judge_prompt, check_brief, or get_rules, nor does it list explicit prerequisites.

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