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

Annotations already mark this as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive; the description adds useful context by specifying what the tool will disclose (current boundaries, supported outputs, unsupported claims). This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 compact sentence with each phrase contributing a distinct content category. It earns its place, though the phrase 'machine-facing' is slightly redundant and the sentence reads more like an instruction than a behavioral description.

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 capability-introspection tool, the description sufficiently conveys the scope of return content. There is no output schema, and the description does not describe the exact return shape, but the listed categories are enough for a basic agent to select and invoke it safely.

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 and 100% schema coverage, which establishes a baseline of 4. There are no parameter semantics for the description to add, and it does not need to compensate for missing schema documentation.

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 clear verb (Describe) with a specific resource (ForensiScope) and names the content areas it covers: routing capabilities, current boundaries, supported outputs, and unsupported claims. It is distinguishable from the pricing and handoff siblings, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with classify_media_route.

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?

No when-to-use guidance is provided. The description does not say to call this before routing or how it differs from classify_media_route, get_forensiscope_pricing, or prepare_forensiscope_handoff, leaving the agent to infer the selection logic from names alone.

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