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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the output is 'deterministic' and 'read-only,' but it does not cover permissions, side effects, auth requirements, or other operational behavior an agent may need.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It communicates the core action and output type efficiently, despite being terse elsewhere.

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?

Although an output schema exists and return values need not be explained, the description omits important context for a tool with a required playbook_id, an optional finding, and no annotations. It does not explain the required parameter or when to choose this tool, leaving significant gaps for correct invocation.

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 0%, so the description should compensate for undocumented parameters. It only alludes to 'a finding' and says nothing about the required 'playbook_id' parameter, leaving the required input's meaning unexplained.

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 ('Build') and resource ('phase, gate, and evidence checklist') applied to a finding. The purpose is clear, but the description does not distinguish this tool from siblings such as recipes_playbook_get or recipes_match_finding, so it falls short of a 5.

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, prerequisites, or alternative-tool guidance is provided. The mention of 'for a finding' gives only an implicit hint of context, but an agent is left to infer when this tool should be selected over related playbook tools.

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