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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It declares this is a 'compressed public residual summary' and lists contents, which implies a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly state side effects, safety, or return details. It also does not disclose any rate limits, performance characteristics, or what happens if data is unavailable. This gap is significant for a tool with no annotation support.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that enumerates the summary's contents without extraneous words. It is appropriately concise, though the heavy use of domain jargon (e.g., 'dual error') makes it somewhat cryptic. Still, it earns its place and is efficient.

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?

For a zero-parameter, read-only summary tool, the description lists what is returned, which is reasonable. However, it does not explain the meaning of 'dual error' or 'top planes', nor does it specify whether the output is a JSON object, string, or something else. Given the lack of an output schema, some additional context would improve completeness, but the core purpose is covered.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema is trivially covered. The description therefore has no parameter semantics to add, and the baseline for 0 params is 4. The listing of output fields partially compensates for the lack of an output schema, though not fully.

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 produces a 'Compressed public residual summary' and enumerates the key fields it includes (active planes, energy, dual error, top planes, swarm/bindings counts). This is specific enough to convey the resource being summarized and distinguishes it from more focused tools like cddg_residual_energy. However, terms like 'dual error' are not explained, which slightly reduces clarity.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings (e.g., cddg_residual_energy, cddg_step, cddg_query_plane). The description implies it is a quick high-level summary, but no when/when-not conditions are given. The agent must infer its use case from the name and context.

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