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

readOnlyHint is already declared, so the bar is lower, yet the description adds genuine value: the version-wide coverage scope, the fact that read-only-referenced keys don't block deploy, the ACT-032 rejection behavior at save/publish, and what each entry carries (inferred type, suggested name, reference site). These behavioral details go well beyond the annotation.

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 core action, then progressively adds remediation and versioning context. Dense but tightly packed; the parenthetical '(read-only)' is slightly redundant given the annotation.

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 read-only list tool with no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the shape of each entry (inferred type, suggested name, reference location), so an agent knows what to expect without a return schema. Complete enough 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 100% and both required params (groupId, versionId) are documented in the schema, so baseline is 3. The description implies version-scoping but adds no format or semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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+resource+scope: 'List facts referenced by a version's rules but not yet defined (read-only).' This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling lexq_facts_list (registered facts) and from lexq_facts_create (registration).

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?

Explains when the output matters (read-only keys don't block publish/deploy, but action targets are rejected with ACT-032) and routes the agent to lexq_facts_create to remediate. No explicit when-not or alternative comparison, but the context for using it is clear.

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