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 does not contradict these. It adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: that the tool returns a 'deployable spec' (not an actual deployment), enforces distribution allocations summing to 100, and includes a curated risk list covering specific vectors. This helps the agent understand what it will and won't do.

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 a single, dense sentence that front-loads the primary action and resource, then enumerates the key output components in a clear sequence. Every phrase adds useful information, with no filler or redundant repetition of the title or annotations.

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 moderate complexity (5 parameters, output schema present, safe annotations), the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, output deliverables, constraints, and risk categories. The presence of an output schema means return values need not be fully described, and the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to decide 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 input schema already provides 100% coverage with descriptive parameter explanations for all five fields. The description adds general context about the output (allocations summing to 100, templates, checklist) but does not elaborate on individual parameters beyond what the schema already states, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 uses a specific verb ('Design') and a clear resource ('non-security token strategy for an autonomous agent'), and lists concrete deliverables (spec, contract templates, checklist, cost estimate, risks). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools such as agent-revenue-optimizer or mcp-security-scanner, which target completely different functions.

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 implies a clear use case: when you need a token strategy for an autonomous agent, including fair-launch defaults and risk analysis. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name alternative tools, though the context is sufficient for an agent to infer applicability.

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