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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and a closed-world scope; the description adds real context on top: 'read-only; returns a capability report without modifying files', fixed-shape output, and normalized tool-name matching so the caller knows exact-string matching is not required. It does not cover failure modes or matching edge cases, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Purpose and scope are front-loaded, and every sentence carries information (scope, safety, routing, output shape, parameter relationships). It is dense and somewhat long, but no sentence is filler; minor tightening could improve it.

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, the description needn't detail return values, and it still notes the report is fixed-shape. Scope, safety, routing, and parameter aliasing are all covered, so an agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly.

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%, so the baseline would be 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema: it discloses that availableTools and capabilities are aliases and that omitting both yields per-phase requirements without a present/missing comparison. That omit-both behavior is not derivable from the schema alone.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: reports which tools/MCPs each VDD phase requires vs treats as optional across the 8-phase pipeline and cross-phase helpers. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling vdd_inspect ('to inspect artifacts instead of capabilities use vdd_inspect'), so an agent can route without opening either 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?

Gives explicit when-to-use conditions ('run before vdd_strategize to plan research-subagent dispatch, or when a phase fails for lack of a tool') and names the alternative tool with the condition that selects it (vdd_inspect for artifacts). Exclusions and alternatives are both covered.

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