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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose non-obvious behavior: the fingerprint-based dedupe contract and the empty-state behavior ('when no prior report exists, response still includes report.subject with resolved subjectEntityId'). It omits auth/permission requirements and error behavior, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Three dense sentences, front-loaded with the fetch purpose, then the dedupe rule, then the parameter and edge-case notes. No filler, though 'DeFOSPAM' is domain jargon that will not help an unfamiliar agent.

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?

Covers purpose, dedupe semantics, parameter addressing and the empty-result case despite having no annotations, no output schema and 0% schema coverage. Auth requirements and the shape of the returned findings remain unstated, so it is not fully complete for a 3-param 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it explains subjectType is STORY|SCENARIO, that subjectEntityId or ordinalId is accepted, and that ordinalId is the numeric part of US-<n>/TS-<n>. It does not define the expected format of subjectEntityId itself.

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: 'Fetch the stored requirement quality report (metrics + findings with user states)' scoped to a user story or test scenario. This clearly distinguishes a read of stored findings from the write-side sibling report-requirement-quality-findings, though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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 when ('Use before local DeFOSPAM to dedupe') and a when-not ('do not re-report findings already IGNORED or APPLIED, match by fingerprint'). Strong operational context, but it does not name the alternative tool an agent should call when it does want to report.

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