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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful context: deterministic rendering ('deterministic'), implementation detail ('Go-native'), and output components (fit report, hashes, compact search metadata, human-readable receipt fields). It also discloses the current MVP limitation (no D2/Graphviz). No contradiction with annotations.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and key outputs, and the second sentence adds a relevant limitation. Every word earns its place; no fluff or redundancy.

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's complex nested contract, the description provides a clear high-level purpose without over-explaining. The output schema and annotations cover return values and safety, so the description is complete enough for an agent to understand when and how to use it. Minor gap: it doesn't explain what the fit report or receipt fields are for, but output schema likely covers this.

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 coverage is 100%, and the schema itself provides rich descriptions for the contract and its fields. The description does not add parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 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 action ('Render') and resource ('validated StrategiX visual-spec contract'), and specifies output artifacts ('SVG', 'fit report', 'hashes', 'compact search metadata', 'receipt fields'). It also distinguishes from sibling tools by noting this is the render tool, not validate/search/package, and clarifies the current MVP limitation regarding external D2/Graphviz.

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 phrase 'validated contract' implies the contract must be validated first, and 'This MVP does not use external D2/Graphviz yet' suggests a limitation, but the description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or name any sibling tools. Usage context is implied rather than explicitly guided.

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