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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, and the description adds real context beyond them: static answers quoted from viberaven.dev with per-part source links, an explicit statement that no repository/database/Vercel access occurs, and the failure path ('An unknown id returns found: false and the list of known ids'). No contradiction with the annotations; it reinforces 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?

Front-loaded with the trigger sentence, then output shape, then boundary, then the id list. Every sentence carries information, though the eight-item id enumeration is a dense block that partially duplicates the parameter discussion and could be trimmed or deferred to the 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 an output schema present, return values need not be detailed, and the description covers triggers, scope boundaries, source attribution, and the not-found case. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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% and the schema already gives format and an example, so the baseline is 3. The description goes further by enumerating all eight known ids, which the schema does not express as an enum, and by documenting the unknown-id behavior — meaningful added semantics for the single parameter.

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+resource: explains what a VibeRaven finding id (e.g. rls_disabled, env_var_drift) means, and enumerates the concrete outputs (what the rule detects, why it matters, how to fix, what it does not check). The resource is unambiguous against siblings launch_checklist and search_guides, so an agent can separate them without opening a schema.

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?

Trigger conditions are explicit and concrete: 'Use this when the user asks what a VibeRaven finding id means... or pastes a finding from a VibeRaven 1.5.3 report.' It also bounds scope with 'It does not read the user's repository, database or Vercel project.' No sibling tool is named as an alternative for the non-matching case, so it stops short of a full when/when-not/alternative triad.

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