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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/openWorld=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: analysis runs in a 'browser-local analyzer' and returns a 'hash-bound static evidence summary', which tells the agent the work is local and the output is tamper-evident static evidence rather than live measurement.

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 the use trigger, followed by a behavioral note and an exclusion list. Every sentence carries distinct routing or behavioral information with no 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?

For a 2-parameter tool with an output schema and full safety annotations, the description supplies the scoping, trigger, exclusions, and behavioral model an agent needs. Return format is covered by the output schema, so nothing essential 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 coverage is 50%: analysis_depth is well described in the schema (enum plus when-to-use note about reading the full attachment), but the required 'file' parameter is only a $ref with no textual description. The description adds no parameter meaning at all, so it does not compensate for the uncovered file parameter; baseline 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 (inspect/analyze) and resource (attached model deployment artifact), and enumerates the exact formats accepted (TFLite, ONNX, GGUF, SafeTensors, Core ML, ExecuTorch), which sharply scopes the tool. It does not name siblings like deepbom_publish_analysis, but the action+resource pairing is concrete enough that an agent can identify it without opening the 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 trigger ('Use when the user asks to inspect an attached ... artifact') and an extensive exclusion list (training checkpoints, measured latency, task accuracy, clinical validity, actual runtime placement). This is exactly the when/when-not guidance that lets an agent route correctly.

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