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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral content: the result is an interview protocol addressed to the agent, the agent must follow it with the user, and writing should happen only at the end. It doesn't need to cover auth/rate limits for a local read, so 4 is appropriate.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, then the trigger, then the behavioral instruction. Every clause adds a distinct constraint (when, ordering, where the spec format lives) with no filler.

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 and no parameters, the description must explain what the agent receives and what to do with it, and it does: an interview protocol to conduct with the user, followed by a spec written via create-requirement-document at the end. Nothing needed to invoke or use this correctly is missing.

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?

Zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. Schema coverage is 100% and there is nothing parameter-level for the description to clarify.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ("Get the greenfield discovery interview protocol") and scopes it to a new product or feature. It also names the sibling create-requirement-document and where that tool takes over, so an agent can distinguish it from the document/requirement siblings without opening a schema.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger (user starting something new and has not worked out what it should do) plus a timing constraint (BEFORE drafting requirements). It also names the follow-on tool and the condition under which the spec is written, so when-to-use and sequencing are unambiguous.

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