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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It discloses the content of the report (verdict, neighbors, committer weight) and implies it is a read operation (scout report). However, it does not explicitly state that it is non-destructive, idempotent, or safe, nor does it mention any authorization requirements or rate limits. The transparency is adequate but could be more explicit.

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 two sentences, each essential. The first sentence defines the tool's purpose and output, while the second explains parameter usage. There is no redundancy or unnecessary information, making it highly concise and front-loaded.

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?

Given the tool has only 2 optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: what the tool does, what it returns, and how to invoke it in both modes. The absence of output schema is compensated by the clear list of return components (verdict + neighbors + committer weight). The description is fully complete for this low-complexity tool.

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 descriptions for both name and owner. The description adds value by explaining the conditional use: 'Pass owner+name for one repo, omit both for the global summary.' This clarifies the interplay between parameters beyond the schema's individual descriptions, making it easier for the agent to invoke correctly.

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 clearly states the tool provides 'LAWBOR-side review verdicts on Gitlawb repos' including specific components (verdict, neighbors, committer weight). It distinguishes from siblings like lawbor_neighbors by being a composite report, and explains the two modes (single repo vs global summary) with explicit parameter usage.

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 gives explicit guidance on when to pass owner+name (for one repo) and when to omit both (for the global summary). This helps the agent decide how to use parameters. However, it does not explicitly mention when to prefer this tool over alternatives like lawbor_repo_trust or lawbor_neighbors, only implying it through the description of what it returns.

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