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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safe-read profile is covered; the description reinforces with 'Free, read-only' and adds the private-repo auth dependency on connect_github. It also sketches the return concept (lane + why). Useful added context, though it stops short of describing scope limits or analysis depth.

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?

Front-loaded with the verb and target, and the sequencing/private-repo facts are packed efficiently. Slightly dense with parenthetical lane definitions, but no sentence is wasted.

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 no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing returns and does so concretely (framework, language, package manager, database/email, lane, one-line why), plus the call-ordering and auth prerequisites. Nothing an agent needs to call 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 description coverage is 100%, with branch and subdir already richly documented (slash-containing branch caveat, monorepo probes). The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Inspect a GitHub repo') and enumerates exactly what it detects: framework, language, package manager, database/email use, plus the `lavela` lane with a one-line `why`. This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like provision_* or launch_saas, which act on the repo rather than analyzing it.

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?

Explicitly routes usage with 'Call it before lavela.launch_saas' and gives a precondition for private repos ('work after lavela.connect_github'). Both the when-to-use and the prerequisite are stated, leaving nothing to inference.

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