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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/openWorldHint=false/destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely non-redundant behavior: 'Deterministic alias matching (e.g. SM58 → mic_shure_sm58)' and the scope guard that it does not touch org stock, both of which help predict output.

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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then return shape, matching behavior, and scope exclusion. Every sentence carries distinct information with no waste.

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?

An output schema exists, yet the description still briefly names the return shape (mapped[]/unmapped[]) and the deterministic matching rule, plus the key scope boundary. Nothing needed 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 coverage is 100% and the sole parameter 'lines' is fully documented in the schema (examples, max items, whitespace handling). The description adds nothing about the input parameter, so 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 and resource ('Map free-text gear lines onto the public Soundcheck inventory catalog') and immediately contrasts itself with search_inventory ('browses the taxonomy'). An agent can distinguish this normalization tool from the browse tool without opening either 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 an explicit exclusion ('Does not read or write organization inventory stock') and routes to the alternative 'search_inventory browses the taxonomy'. The gap is that the sibling normalize_positions is not addressed, leaving potential ambiguity about which normalizer applies.

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