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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description does not contradict them. However, the description adds little behavioral context beyond the method name; it does not explain what happens during trials, what outputs are expected, or any limitations not already covered by 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 a single short sentence, which is front-loaded but under-specified. While it is not verbose, the brevity sacrifices useful detail that should be present, especially given the tool has 7 parameters and no output schema.

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?

With 7 parameters, a rich set of annotations, and no output schema, the description is too terse to be considered complete. It omits context about required inputs, the nature of 'instability', expected return format, and how it relates to sibling tools, leaving the agent with insufficient information for correct invocation.

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%, with each parameter already having a description in the schema. The tool description itself provides no parameter-specific semantics, so it adds no extra value beyond the schema, which corresponds to the baseline 3.

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 ('Estimate') and resource ('instability') and adds the method ('controlled perturb-and-resolve trials'), clearly indicating what the tool does. However, it does not differentiate this from siblings like waveguard_cascade_risk or waveguard_mechanism_probe, so it misses the highest bar for distinction.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies it is for instability estimation, but it never states scenarios, exclusions, or comparisons such as 'use this instead of X when Y' which would help an agent select it correctly.

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