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

Despite annotations already carrying destructiveHint=true, the description adds specificity: it names the exact overwrite target (vdd/strategy.md), the prerequisite artifact (vdd/vision.md), and the two-pass behavior where a first call without arguments returns only dispatch specs. No contradiction with annotations.

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 efficient: the main purpose and output are front-loaded, followed by overwrite warning, prerequisite/ordering, two-pass protocol, and alternative tool. Each sentence carries a distinct, necessary piece of information.

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 10-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the critical operational context: prerequisite file, execution order, destructive overwrite, the two-pass return behavior (dispatch specs), and which sibling to use instead. Nothing essential for correct invocation 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 raises it by explaining the workflow role of availableTools (first-pass dispatch specs) and researchFindings (second-pass synthesis). It adds context beyond the schema's individual field descriptions, though most parameter semantics still live in 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 uses a specific verb ('Produce') with a clear resource ('research-backed strategy into vdd/strategy.md') and enumerates the contents (strategic pillars, competitive analysis, risk register). It distinguishes itself from siblings by naming its phase position ('VDD Phase 2') and explicitly routing post-artifact changes to vdd_amend.

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?

Supplies explicit when-to-use context: 'run after vdd_vision and before vdd_tactics' and 'Requires vdd/vision.md'. It names the alternative tool for the changed-strategy case (vdd_amend) and details the two-pass invocation protocol with availableTools and researchFindings.

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