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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds some context about the return value ('pinned contract digest and scope') and the strict input requirements, but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as side effects, rate limits, or failure modes. With annotations present, this is adequate but not exceptional.

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 with a clear front-loaded action and concise exclusions. Every word adds value, avoiding redundancy or filler. It is well-structured for quick parsing.

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 has an output schema (so return values are documented) and annotations cover safety, the description is quite complete. It clearly states prerequisites and exclusions. However, the lack of parameter explanation is a minor gap that prevents a perfect score, as the agent must infer the meaning of 'contract' from enums alone.

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 has only one parameter 'contract' with an enum but no descriptions, and schema description coverage is 0%. The tool description does not explain what 'contract' means or how to choose between 'node-package' and 'env-safety'. The phrase 'matching supported static claim' hints at the concept, but the description fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation, leaving the agent without clear parameter semantics.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'return the pinned contract digest and scope' given a public repository, exact commit SHA, and supported static claim. It also differentiates from siblings by explicitly listing what it does not handle ('runtime, builds, tests, deployments'), distinguishing it from other tools like eligibility or verification.

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 provides explicit preconditions ('After a task is already known to have a public GitHub repository, an exact lowercase 40-character commit SHA, and a matching supported static claim') and explicit exclusions ('Do not call for mutable or abbreviated refs, local or private repositories, runtime, builds, tests, deployments, or broad production-readiness claims'). This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance, even without naming sibling tools directly.

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