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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds vital behavioral context: it never enables mesh radios, never invents tools/ops, returns registry entries/digests/allowlists, and calls out that unknown names will refuse with FG-HALLUC-TOOL. It also clarifies that compact LIVE_OPS tokens are discovery hints, not execution.

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 very long and includes large embedded allowlist catalog listings that could arguably live in an output schema or reference doc. However, those listings serve the tool's discovery mission and the front-loading is good ('List the hashed FragGate registry... Discovery first'). It earns its length functionally, though it is not tightly concise.

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 tool's discovery purpose and the presence of an output schema plus thorough annotations, the description covers usage boundaries, return contents, and key safety traits. It could be considered slightly over-complete for a simple 0-param tool, but it leaves no operational hole for an agent deciding how to invoke 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 schema already covers the only parameter (none, empty object) with a description, so the baseline is high. The description further reinforces that 'Empty {} only' and explains what the caller should expect, adding a small but meaningful behavioral constraint beyond the schema.

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 states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('the hashed FragGate registry') and distinguishes itself from siblings like fraggate_describe and fraggate_call. It explicitly frames itself as 'Discovery first' and gives the scope (live / stub / local_only + digests), which clearly differentiates it from other tools.

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 explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance, naming alternatives (runtime_software, fraggate_describe, fraggate_call) and specific exclusions ('Not a hub Software tab and not exec'). It also explains the discovery-first role, which leaves no ambiguity about selecting this tool.

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