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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds useful semantic context by explaining that 'declared_only means a schema with no executable witness,' which helps an agent interpret the returned matrix without contradicting 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 two sentences and contains no obvious filler, with the main purpose stated first and the term 'declared_only' defined second. It is dense with domain terminology but appropriately sized for the amount of information it conveys.

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?

There is no output schema and no parameters, so the description carries the burden of explaining what the tool returns. It lists the matrix contents and defines one key term, though it does not specify the exact output format or structure of the matrix.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics for the description to clarify. Per the rubric, a zero-parameter tool receives a baseline of 4.

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 resource: a machine-readable matrix of installed Lens producers, checks, profiles, limits, and contract tests. It clearly describes what the tool returns, though it does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools such as law_packages or law_rules.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance, no conditions for choosing this tool over alternatives, and no exclusions. It only describes the content of the matrix, leaving usage context to be inferred from the tool name.

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