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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description does not contradict them. It adds behavioral context beyond annotations: explains that stacks are organized by mission, same tool may appear in multiple stacks, and describes the return format (3-6 tools with fields). No annotation contradiction.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and usage guidelines. It contains a long list of triggers which, while useful, could be trimmed. However, every sentence contributes to clarity, and the structure is logical.

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, usage guidelines, behavioral traits, return format, and parameter semantics. With high schema coverage and no missing elements, it is fully complete for the tool's complexity.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all 6 parameters. The description reiterates some parameter usage (e.g., 'goal' should be raw phrasing, 'mission' enum values) but does not add significant meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Recommend'), identifies the resource ('curated stack of AI tools'), and adds context ('for a specific user goal or mission'). It clearly distinguishes from siblings by explicitly stating when not to use it and providing alternatives.

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 explicit triggers for when to use ('Use when the user describes WHAT they're trying to build...') and includes a list of real trigger phrases. It also gives clear exclusions ('Do NOT use when the user has already chosen a specific tool') with specific sibling tool names.

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