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

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations by disclosing that two internal WASM calls are made, total latency is sub-millisecond, and the response includes an engine identifier. No contradiction with annotations found.

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 two short, information-dense sentences. It front-loads the tool's composite nature and then gives the two details that matter most: output contents and performance characteristics. No wasted words.

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 simple one-parameter schema, full schema documentation coverage, and strong safety annotations, the description covers the essential inputs, outputs, and side effects. The main gap is the lack of explicit comparison to sibling tools for when a caller should choose only faf_score, faf_get_tier, or faf_validate instead.

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 single parameter 'content' is fully described in the input schema as 'Raw .faf YAML content to analyze,' giving 100% schema coverage. The description does not add parameter-level detail, but it does not need to because the schema already carries the meaning.

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 clear composite purpose: 'One-call composite — returns score, tier-ready, valid, and engine identifier.' It distinguishes itself from single-purpose siblings like faf_score, faf_get_tier, and faf_validate by making the composite nature explicit, though it does not name those siblings directly.

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 'one-call composite' phrasing implies this tool should be used when a caller wants score, tier, and validation together instead of making separate calls. However, it never explicitly states when not to use it or which alternatives to prefer for partial analysis, leaving usage primarily implied.

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