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

Annotations already mark the tool read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds significant behavioral context: it downloads a snapshot, runs a static contract without executing repository commands, and returns a signed receipt. It also instructs to return the report field verbatim and stop, which is valuable beyond 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, front-loaded with the prerequisite, then the action, then the output directive. Every sentence serves a purpose, with no redundancy or 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?

The description covers the full workflow: precondition (eligibility), operation (download, run static contract), safety constraint (no commands), and output behavior (signed receipt, return report verbatim). Since an output schema exists, return-value details are not needed. It also references the sibling tool appropriately, providing complete contextual guidance.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by mapping 'selected pinned static contract' to the contract parameter and 'immutable public GitHub snapshot' to repository URL and commit SHA. It does not explicitly explain each parameter or enum value, but the schema itself provides the enum and patterns, and the description gives enough context to understand their roles.

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 verifies an immutable public repository by downloading a snapshot and running a static contract. It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly requiring a prior eligibility check and by focusing on verification rather than linting or eligibility.

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 explicitly instructs to use only after works_public_eligibility returns eligible, establishing a clear prerequisite and ordering with a sibling tool. It also specifies the execution mode (without executing repository commands) and the output behavior (return report verbatim and stop).

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