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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the 'deterministic' nature of the blueprint, which is mildly useful context, but it does not disclose side effects, permissions, failure modes, or other behavioral traits beyond what annotations provide.

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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It states the precondition ('Use after resolving capability names') before the output deliverable, and every phrase contributes to purpose or usage.

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's complexity, the description is minimal, but the rich schema and output schema carry the detailed parameter and return-structure information. The main missing element is an explicit tie to sibling tools for routing, though the precondition 'after resolving capability names' partially compensates by signaling the correct workflow position.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema documents all 7 parameters. The description only gives a high-level sense that parameters feed into 'package, plugin-order, configuration, lifecycle, and compatibility' blueprint categories, but it does not add parameter-level meaning beyond the schema.

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 names a specific action ('compose') and a concrete deliverable: 'a deterministic package, plugin-order, configuration, lifecycle, and compatibility blueprint.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings that inspect, search, resolve, or validate. The phrase 'Use after resolving capability names' also anchors its role in the workflow.

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?

It provides a clear precondition and usage context: use only after capability names have been resolved, which points to resolution-stage sibling tools. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so it lacks the full when/when-not routing that would earn a 5.

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