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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that recommendations are 'explainable' and include 'confidence, alternatives, and next prompts,' which hints at the output structure. However, it does not disclose whether the tool has side effects, requires specific permissions, or mutates any state. For an audit-completion tool, it is likely non-destructive, but that is not stated.

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 a single, dense sentence that front-loads the core purpose and output characteristics. There is no filler or redundant phrasing. It is concise and efficient, earning a top score.

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?

Given the tool has 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is inadequate for an agent to understand the full invocation context. It does not explain the required 'systems' parameter, the meaning of 'stage' or 'motion,' or what the complete output structure looks like beyond the mentioned elements. An agent would likely need to inspect other tools or schemas to use 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 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining parameters. It only implicitly references 'answers' and 'connectedEvidence' via 'user answers and connected-system evidence.' The required 'systems' parameter and others like 'goal,' 'stage,' 'motion,' and 'constraints' are left unexplained. This is insufficient for an agent to correctly construct inputs.

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 the tool's function: turning user answers and connected-system evidence into KEEP/SWAP/BUILD recommendations with specific output attributes (confidence, alternatives, next prompts). This is a specific verb+resource and not a tautology. However, it does not explicitly contrast with siblings like start_stack_audit or recommend_stack, relying on the tool name to imply it completes an audit, so it earns a 4 rather than 5.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus its alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, such as having started an audit with start_stack_audit, nor does it exclude scenarios where recommend_stack might be more appropriate. The only implicit hint is the word 'complete' in the name, which is not enough for an agent to decide between siblings.

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