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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so 'Read-only; no side effects' earns no credit. What the description adds beyond structured data is the return shape (Markdown list grouped by category, with title, summary, confidence score, guidance and evidence paths), which is genuinely useful since no output schema exists.

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 purpose before return details and routing guidance. Every sentence contributes, though 'Read-only; no side effects' is marginally redundant with the 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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by detailing the return format and fields; parameters are fully covered by the schema and safety by the annotations. Nothing an agent needs to call 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%: both the optional category filter and the repository parameter are fully documented in the schema, including the multi-repo fallback behavior. The description adds no parameter syntax or format detail beyond this, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 and resource ('Get the coding conventions Moxie Docs inferred for the repository') and names the sibling it is not for path-scoped work (moxie.get_doc_impact). An agent can distinguish it from get_doc_impact and sibling context tools 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?

Explicitly gives the when-to-use ('for the general rules to follow') and the when-to-prefer-an-alternative condition ('when you already know the files you're about to edit, prefer moxie.get_doc_impact'). The alternative and its selecting condition are both named.

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