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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description adds meaningful context beyond them: it returns metadata only and performs no file inspection, which is exactly the behavioral distinction an agent needs here.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the 'use before analysis when...' trigger, then the scope exclusion. No filler and nothing redundant.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the annotations carry the safety profile. Combined with the explicit usage trigger and the file-inspection exclusion, this is sufficient for an agent to invoke it 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, which is the baseline-4 case; there is nothing in the schema for the description to supplement. No parameter semantics are needed or expected.

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 states a specific function (returns capability metadata) and explicitly scopes out file inspection, which cleanly separates it from deepbom_analyze_file. It is clear what the tool returns, though the 'what it does' is partly carried by the name/title rather than a strong verb+resource phrasing.

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?

It gives explicit trigger conditions: use it before analysis when format support, privacy boundaries, or the ChatGPT-vs-local path distinction is unclear. That is a concrete when-to-use rule, and the 'does not inspect a file' clause implicitly steers file work to the analyze sibling.

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