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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond those: 'No LLM call. No plan gate.' and 'Does NOT write anything to the database.' These clarify cost and side-effect expectations that annotations don't express. No return-format details beyond the field list.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and returns, then usage, then the no-write guarantee. Mostly tight, though 'plus a freshness block with those figures' is mildly redundant since freshness was already enumerated. Every other clause earns its place.

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 must carry the return-value burden, and it does so thoroughly: score range, severity enum, and each issue category plus the freshness block. For a single-param read tool this leaves nothing an agent needs 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?

There is a single parameter (projectId) with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents it. The description adds no extra syntax, format, or constraint detail for projectId. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the parameter semantics.

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 ('Run a deterministic schedule-health check on an in-app project') and enumerates the exact outputs (0-100 score, severity, issues array, freshness block). The scope is clearly distinct from generic risk tools. It does not, however, explicitly name the nearest siblings like get_schedule_risk or analyze_project_risks to differentiate itself.

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?

Gives clear triggering context: use when the user asks 'how healthy is this project?' or as a pre-flight check before sprint planning. This is concrete usage guidance. It stops short of naming when NOT to use it or which alternative to pick instead (e.g., get_schedule_risk vs run_readiness_check), so it's a solid 4 rather than 5.

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