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

Annotations already establish that this is a read-only, non-destructive, closed-world operation, so safety behavior needs no restating. The description usefully adds what the call returns (required keys, types, sample body), which matters because there is no output schema. It does not mention whether the version must be published or how it behaves for a nonexistent version ID.

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 compact sentences with no filler, and the core action is front-loaded before the return-value note. It is efficient, though it is terse enough that a small amount of additional routing context would have been worth the words.

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 two-parameter, read-only introspection tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers both the purpose and the shape of the result, which is the main thing an agent needs. Gaps are minor: preconditions such as version state or error behavior are unaddressed.

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%: groupId is documented as the policy group ID and versionId as the version ID, both required with UUID formats. The description only implies the version scoping ('a version requires') and adds no syntax, format, or sourcing detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: it analyzes which input facts a given version requires, and it names the output content (required keys, types, example request body). That is clear enough for an agent to distinguish it from listing/creating facts. It does not, however, explicitly contrast itself with nearby read tools like lexq_versions_get or lexq_rules_list.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative. An agent can infer it belongs before submitting facts for a version, but that workflow position is implied rather than stated, and nothing tells the agent how it differs from fetching the version itself.

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