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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, yet it omits whether the tool is read-only or generative, what permissions or inputs it needs, and what the response looks like. The only behavioral hint is "copy-paste prompt pack with examples," which is vague and unaudited.

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, so it is not bloated, but the lead is marketing framing rather than the tool's function. The verifiable part (prompt pack with examples) is buried at the end instead of 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?

For a zero-annotation, no-output-schema tool, the description should explain what a caller gets back and how the generated artifact is used. It gestures at a "prompt pack with examples" but leaves the actual deliverable and its downstream use undefined.

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?

One optional parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already explains that "query" scopes the analysis. The description adds nothing further about how to phrase or scope that query; 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?

"Proto gen tool" merely restates the tool name, and the rest is positioning language ("production-ready", "for marketing and operations leaders"). It never states what the tool actually produces (a prototype spec? a PRD-adjacent doc? UI copy?) or how it differs from rd-proto-check-tool and rd-proto-tpl-tool.

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?

No when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives, even though the sibling set clearly contains a gen/check/tpl triad for the same artifact. "You can run today" is a marketing claim, not a usage condition.

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