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

The annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description adds useful behavioral context by mentioning 'deterministic' and itemizing the output components (fit report, hashes, search metadata, receipt fields). It also mentions the MVP constraint about not using D2/Graphviz. No contradictions with annotations.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and output, followed by a brief MVP caveat. No wasted words, and information density is high.

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?

Given that there is an output schema, the description need not explain return values. It covers the tool's purpose, output artifacts, and a key limitation. It implies a prerequisite (validated contract) and references a deterministic behavior. Missing explicit error/edge-case information but that is not essential here. Complete enough for a rendering tool with rich schema and annotations.

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%, so the schema already thoroughly documents all four parameters, including the nested 'contract' object. The description adds minimal parameter-specific meaning, only referencing the 'contract' as 'validated' which is already evident from the schema's description. With full schema coverage, 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Render') with a clear resource ('a validated StrategiX visual-spec contract') and specifies the output ('deterministic Go-native SVG with fit report, hashes, compact search metadata, and human-readable receipt fields'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like validate or search.

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 states 'Render a validated StrategiX visual-spec contract', implying the contract should be validated first, which hints at using strategix_diagram_validate before rendering. It also notes 'This MVP does not use external D2/Graphviz yet', clarifying a limitation. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool.

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