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

No annotations, so the description must disclose behavior itself; it does creditably state 'This tool changes Vara runtime state', signaling mutation. However, it omits how long a scan runs, whether it is blocking or async, whether repeated calls conflict, and what state is altered – critical gaps for a heavy pipeline trigger.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the action stated first and the state-change warning immediately after. The brevity is efficient, though it edges toward under-specification rather than tightness for a 13-parameter tool.

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 13-parameter, zero-required mutating pipeline tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description says nothing about parameter behavior, return values, runtime, or failure modes. An agent could not invoke this correctly without reading the schema blind.

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?

With 13 parameters at 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the full burden, yet it only loosely gestures at two of them ('dual-track', 'multi-timescale' corresponding to enable_dual_track/enable_multi_timescale). Keywords, active_planes, sweep_depth_hours, novelty floors, extra feeds, and generate_fir get no explanation of meaning or effect.

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?

Specific verb 'Execute' plus resource 'full Real Vara scan' clearly contrasts with siblings like vara_get_scan and vara_list_scans, which read existing scans rather than produce one. The phrase 'Real Vara scan' and 'dual-track, multi-timescale pipeline' remain unexplained jargon, so an agent can tell what kind of action it is but not what the scan actually produces.

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 never says when to run a scan versus calling vara_query_signals, vara_list_scans, or vara_generate_fir, nor does it describe prerequisites such as an existing scan configuration. Only the phrase 'changes Vara runtime state' hints that this is a mutating/kicking-off action.

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