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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description concretizes the destruction ('Overwrites vdd/strategy.md') — exactly the kind of 'what gets destroyed' context that earns credit. It also discloses non-obvious behavior the annotations cannot convey: the two-pass protocol, the effect of a first call with neither input, and the write precondition on vdd/vision.md.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: artifact and contents first, then overwrite/prereq, then workflow, then alternative, then parameter relationships. Length is justified by the multi-step protocol, though it reads as a single long block rather than clearly segmented sentences.

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 destructive, multi-pass, open-world tool with 4 params, an output schema, and rich annotations, the description covers preconditions, sequencing, overwrite semantics, the two-phase invocation, and the post-hoc alternative. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it 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%, so the baseline is 3. The description still adds meaning beyond the schema by stating the availableTools/capabilities alias relationship and that researchFindings has effect only on the second call — genuine cross-parameter semantics an agent cannot infer 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 artifact: 'Produce research-backed strategy into vdd/strategy.md', plus the concrete outputs (strategic pillars, competitive analysis, risk register) and the source of truth (vision target-domain primers). This clearly distinguishes it from vdd_vision (upstream) and vdd_tactics (downstream).

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?

Explicit ordering ('run after vdd_vision and before vdd_tactics'), a stated precondition ('Requires vdd/vision.md'), and an explicit alternative for a distinct case ('To change strategy after artifacts exist, use vdd_amend'). When-to-use and when-not are both covered.

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