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

No annotations, so description carries full burden. It lists what is returned, giving a clear idea of output. However, it does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, idempotent, or has side effects. The word 'design' suggests no mutation, but this is not explicit.

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?

Two sentences, both informative. No fluff. The first sentence sets the scope, the second lists benefits. Could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points), but effective.

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?

With no output schema, the description adequately details the return components (roles, topology, config, tool assignments, anchor). For a design tool with 3 parameters, this provides sufficient context for an agent to understand expected output.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions. The tool description adds value by specifying what is returned, but it does not clarify the relationship between the input topology parameter and the output topology. The phrase 'Specify your objective and number of agents' omits mentioning topology as an input, which could cause confusion.

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?

Clearly states it designs a full multi-agent fleet architecture. Mentions inputs (objective, agent count) and specific outputs (roles, topology, config, tool assignments, anchor). Distinguishes from siblings by claiming 'full trifecta architecture in one call'.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like axis_agent_onboard or axis_agent_wire. The description implies it's for initial design, but no when-not or exclusion context.

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