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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, closed-world and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: it is a heuristic correlational score, not an authoritative vote, and is Canton-scoped. It does not describe the output shape, but the 'heuristic/checklist' framing meaningfully sets expectations.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and criteria, then tight qualifiers ('Canton-specific. Not a vote; a checklist.'). Every sentence earns its place 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?

With no output schema, the description must convey returns, and it does so conceptually (a readiness score plus checklist attributes). It stops short of specifying the output format or scale, a minor gap for a single-input scoring tool whose safety profile is already covered by annotations.

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?

Only one parameter (draft_text) with 100% schema description coverage ('Full draft text.'), so the schema carries the semantics. The description reinforces what the draft is scored on but adds no format or length guidance beyond the schema, making the baseline 3 correct.

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 action and resource: a heuristic readiness score for a Dev Fund proposal draft. It also names the scoring criteria (milestones, code/PoC references, sources, scope realism) and explicitly distinguishes what it is not ('Not a vote; a checklist'), setting it apart from retrieval-oriented siblings like get_proposal.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the agent can infer this evaluates a draft, and 'Not a vote; a checklist' clarifies its advisory nature. However, there is no explicit when-to-use trigger or routing to alternatives (e.g., get_dev_fund_lifecycle for tracking an accepted proposal), leaving the boundary to inference.

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