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

Annotations already cover read-only and non-destructive status, so the description uses its space well by disclosing behavior the annotations cannot: the ACT-032 rejection path at save/publish, the fact that read-only references do not block deployment, and the downstream effect that registering before publish enables P-060 type checks and P-052 domain checks. This is exactly the kind of publish-gating rule an agent cannot infer from structured fields.

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?

The lead sentence front-loads what the tool returns and its read-only nature, followed by the operational consequence and then the shape of each entry. It is dense with domain jargon (ACT-032, P-060, P-052) but every clause carries behavioral information; only minor tightening would improve it.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description compensates by describing each entry (inferred type, suggested name, reference location in condition/action), which is exactly what an agent needs to interpret results. Combined with the publish-blocking semantics and the follow-up registration path, nothing essential for calling this 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 coverage is 100% and both required parameters (groupId, versionId) are already documented in the schema with UUID formats. The description only adds the scoping note that the result is version-wide across every rule, which is useful but not parameter-level enrichment beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('List facts referenced by a version's rules but not yet defined') and explicitly scopes it to the version, which separates it from the sibling lexq_facts_list of registered facts. An agent can tell what it returns and what it does not return without opening the schema.

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 concrete when-to-use context: unregistered read keys do not block publish/deploy, while an unregistered action targetVar causes rejection at save/publish with ACT-032, and it points to lexq_facts_create as the follow-up action. It stops short of explicitly naming lexq_facts_list as the alternative for already-registered facts, so the routing is implied rather than spelled out.

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