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

The description adds important behavior beyond annotations: public-safe, curated-only data, no live memory/repo/vault reads, and a 2 MESH/call cost. These details meaningfully clarify side effects and data access without contradicting 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?

The description is compact and front-loaded with the core purpose and constraints. However, it repeats the title and uses no space for the missing input guidance, which is a significant structural gap.

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?

The description covers purpose, scope, and cost, but the generic input schema and lack of output schema leave the call format and return expectations unclear. The no-live-data exclusions are helpful, but an agent cannot reliably construct a valid payload from this definition.

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 only parameter, 'input', is described as a capability-specific payload but the schema examples reference unrelated tools like agent-brain and agent-memory. The tool description itself does not explain how to format a DevDesk COG question, leaving an agent without a usable input contract.

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 clearly states a Q&A tool over audited DevDesk COG facts and lists concrete topics: live URLs, raw cog_ask contract, model behavior, lineage, and safety scope. It does not name or contrast sibling tools, so it lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

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?

The description gives strong usage boundaries: curated facts only, no live memory, repo, or vault reads, which tells an agent when not to use it. It does not point to a specific alternative tool for live data, so routing guidance is incomplete.

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