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

The description discloses that it writes specific files (.axint/agent.json, context, coordination files) and that it makes no network calls. This adds meaningful detail beyond the annotations, which already indicate idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false. No 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 organized with 'Use:', 'Inputs:', and 'Effects:' sections, making it scannable. It is slightly verbose but every sentence provides useful context (purpose, usage, effects). 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 presence of an output schema and annotations (idempotent, non-destructive), the description covers the essential context: what it does, when to use it, what files it writes, and that it's local-only. It doesn't explain return values, but the output schema handles that. Complete enough for a setup tool.

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 each parameter already has a clear description. The tool description adds some extra context (e.g., cwd scopes local coordination, projectName shapes files), but doesn't substantially improve on the schema's parameter docs. Baseline 3 applies.

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 purpose with a specific verb ('Install') and resource (local Axint multi-agent project brain). It distinguishes itself from siblings by noting it is a one-time per-project setup and explicitly says it's not needed for one-off compile, which differentiates it from tools like axint.compile.

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 explicit usage guidance: 'use once per project to create local multi-agent coordination; not needed for one-off compile.' This clearly indicates when to use it and provides an exclusion. However, it doesn't mention alternative tools or when not to use it beyond compiling, so it's not a 5.

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