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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false), and the description adds the return shape (Markdown list with title, severity, summary, suggested file paths), which matters since there is no output schema. It restates 'Read-only; no side effects' but adds genuine context 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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then behavior/return, then routing. No filler; every sentence carries distinct information.

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 only two fully-documented parameters and no output schema, the description supplies the missing return-format detail and the routing rules, leaving no gap an agent needs to call this correctly.

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%, and the schema's repository field already documents the owner/name format and the multi-repo fallback behavior. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, 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 ('List the unresolved documentation gaps Moxie Docs found') and immediately scopes it ('areas of the codebase that lack docs'), which distinguishes it from sibling get_documentation_opportunities and get_doc_impact.

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 routes the agent: it declares 'This is gaps only' and names both alternatives with the condition that selects each ('for the full prioritized work queue... use get_documentation_opportunities', 'to scope gaps to files you're about to edit use get_doc_impact').

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