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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a little beyond that by disclosing the mechanism (static Model2Vec embeddings or lexical centroids), which explains why the operation is deterministic and idempotent. It says nothing, though, about failure modes, what a returned 'codon' contains, or whether compilation is cached.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the verb and output are stated immediately. The density of unexplained jargon slightly reduces effective clarity, but nothing is wasted.

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 tool whose whole purpose is producing an unfamiliar artifact (a 'Sutra codon' / 'Mudra formula') with no output schema, the description should say what the agent receives and how to use it downstream. It leaves the return value and its relation to siblings like sutra.cast entirely unexplained.

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 a single required parameter at 100% schema description coverage, the schema already explains 'query' fully. The description adds nothing about how the query is interpreted, its expected granularity, or examples of well-formed intent, so baseline 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?

It has a clear verb ('Compile') and names the input (natural language intent) and the output (a compound Sutra codon and Taoist Mudra formula). However, 'Sutra codon' and 'Taoist Mudra formula' are undefined domain jargon, and the description never distinguishes this from sibling tools such as sutra.cast, sutra.route, sutra.hexagram, or sutra.canon.

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 statement of when to use this versus the other five sutra.* tools or when not to. An agent seeing sutra.compile alongside sutra.cast and sutra.route has no basis in the text for choosing between them.

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