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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description reinforces safety with 'Read-only and non-destructive' and adds the meaningful extra detail 'not separately rate-limited,' which isn't in the annotations. No contradiction.

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 sentences with no fluff. The first sentence delivers the verb and resource immediately, the second provides usage context and safety/rate-limit notes. Every sentence earns its place.

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-parameter, read-only manifest retrieval with annotations covering safety, the description fully explains what the tool returns, when to use it, and its rate-limit behavior. No output schema exists, but the description already lists the manifest contents. Nothing needed 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?

Tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter-level detail, but none is needed since the schema is empty and additionalProperties is false.

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?

Description states 'Get the signed Algenta runtime manifest' – a specific verb and resource. It enumerates the manifest contents (runtime-core inventory, maturity states, proof matrix, typed failure contract, release theorem) which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_runtime_modules or get_runtime_release_validation.

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 context: 'needs the canonical runtime-core inventory... before using runtime-backed execution paths.' This is clear and actionable. It doesn't name alternative tools or exclusions, so it stops short of a 5.

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