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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses meaningful behavior: the band gate is re-applied to the projected state, and Kin Score facets are refused rather than estimated, with the count-based reasoning explained. It does not explicitly state side effects or write behavior, but 'simulate' and 'before doing the work' imply a non-mutating operation.

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 dense and front-loaded: the first clause immediately states the core purpose, and each subsequent sentence adds distinct behavioral information. No sentence is wasted, and the length is appropriate for the complexity.

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 explains the key behavioral edge cases—band re-gating and refusal of Kin facets—without an output schema. Return values are inferable from 'project onto score and band' and 'tell you when buying points still leaves you demoted.' It does not specify exact response formatting, but the lack of an output schema is partially mitigated by this inferred 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?

The schema documents 'fixes' with examples and a pointer to what_can_i_fix, and 'context' with a thorough explanation, but 'slug' has no description. The tool description itself adds little parameter-level detail, leaving 'slug' ambiguous. With 67% schema coverage, this is adequate but not complete.

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 action—projecting fixes onto a provider's agent-readiness score and band—and clarifies it is a simulation before the work is done. It distinguishes itself from actual fix application and from plain readiness lookup by emphasizing the PROJECTED state and re-applied band gate.

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 clearly indicates when to use the tool: before doing the work, to see whether buying points still leaves a provider demoted. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion conditions, but the usage context is strong enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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