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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does disclose determinism, sub-100ms latency, and that results are signed/verified, which signals a safe read path. However, it never states that the call performs no mutation, what requires authentication, or what happens on a cache miss — gaps that matter for an unannotated tool.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler, with the core capability and the accepted input forms front-loaded. Nothing is repeated or padded.

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?

For a 5-parameter tool with nested objects, zero required params, no output schema, and no annotations, the description leaves important questions open: what the successful response contains (patch text, URL, confidence score), how to interpret a no-match result, and the precedence among the optional inputs.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% and every parameter is documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a small amount by naming three alternative input modes (fingerprint, raw error, target) and emphasizing the exact 64-char format, but it does not say how multiple optional parameters combine or which takes precedence.

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 (lookup) and a well-defined resource (signed patch or verified workaround for a failure), plus a concrete performance claim. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like fmagenticl_auto_heal, so an agent must infer the boundary between 'resolve a failure' and 'auto-heal a failure'.

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 sentence 'Accepts exact 64-char SHA-256 fingerprint, raw error string, or target tool name' implies the trigger context (you have a failure and want a remedy), but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or pointer to fmagenticl_auto_heal / fmagenticl_report_patch_outcome as alternatives. Usage is implied rather than guided.

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