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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the tool returns specific content (rules, wealth path, invoice amount, guidance) and notes LEGACY Session/Workday OFF TABLE as primary, which provides some behavioral context beyond annotations. However, these references are cryptic and not fully explained, so the added transparency is partial.

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 description is concise, with two sentences that cover the protocol identity, key returns, and sharing purpose. It is front-loaded with the tool's role ('ABMP normative protocol') and avoids redundant text. Slight deduction for jargon density ('Pilot Challenge Exact $100 wealth path', 'LEGACY Session/Workday OFF TABLE') that could confuse the reader, but overall it is efficient.

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?

Despite having an output schema and annotations, the description is insufficient for fully understanding the tool's behavior. Terms like 'Pilot Challenge Exact $100 wealth path', 'Gateway invoice $299', and 'LEGACY Session/Workday OFF TABLE' are unexplained, leaving the agent uncertain about what the tool actually returns or how it relates to specific workflows. The description provides a high-level overview but omits critical context for a non-trivial protocol tool.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, and the schema confirms this with no properties. According to the rubric, the baseline for 0 parameters is 4. The description does not need to explain parameters, and it does not. No deduction is warranted since there are no parameter semantics to clarify.

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 clearly identifies the tool as the ABMP normative protocol with SQLGuard as the reference implementation, and states it returns MUST/MUST_NOT rules and guidance. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like sqlguard_probe or sqlguard_validate, which likely perform specific actions. However, it lacks a strong action verb (e.g., 'provides', 'documents') and is a bit abstract, so not a 5.

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?

The description implies the tool is for sharing protocol rules with other agent runtimes ('Share with other agent runtimes') and mentions 'free Probe-not-authorize guidance', which hints at a comparison with sqlguard_probe. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites. Usage context is implied but not clearly delineated.

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