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

Annotations already signal read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the description adds important extra context: units in context are marked as given, and there is a detailed privacy disclosure about what Stackcut stores, hashes, never stores, and a warning not to send personal data or secrets.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and every sentence carries useful information. The main weakness is structural: the privacy notice is one long, dense embedded clause that could be clearer as a separate sentence or list, though nothing is wasted.

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 no output schema, the description explains what the tool returns: relevant usage numbers, where to find them, and ready-to-ask questions. It also covers handling of context units and how to route results to downstream tools, making the definition complete for an agent.

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%, with both parameters already described with examples and constraints. The description reinforces the behavior of the context parameter ('Units already stated in context are marked as given') but adds no new parameter-level semantics 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 clearly defines what the tool does: before an audit, it generates which usage numbers matter for each vendor, where to find them, and ready-to-ask questions. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by placing itself as a pre-audit step that feeds audit_stack or find_alternatives.

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?

'Before an audit' provides clear usage context, and 'Pass the answers to audit_stack or find_alternatives' names the downstream alternatives. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose one downstream tool over the other, so it stops short of full when-to-use/when-not guidance.

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