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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds the $0.02 cost and the verdict types (BLOCK/REVIEW/SAFE) which are valuable behavioral details. Does not mention DataHub access specifics or response structure, but annotations carry the safety burden.

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?

Fully front-loaded with cost and action. Two sentences with precise terms. No filler. Every phrase earns its place, including the verdict classification which is essential for an agent to interpret results.

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?

Tool is a single-input read-only guard, so description is sufficient. The complexity is low. It covers cost, classification, and verdict. No output schema, so not explaining return format is acceptable, but could mention that return includes list of affected assets and classifications, which is partially stated.

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%, so both parameters are documented. The description adds the example URN format and clarifies that the return are the assets that break, reinforcing the schema's description. However, no extra semantics beyond what schema provides, 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?

Description clearly states the tool's purpose: a lineage blast-radius guard that classifies downstream assets and issues a verdict. It uses specific verb (blast-radius guard) and resource (DataHub lineage), distinguishing it from general-purpose data tools like 'providers' or 'score'.

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?

Provides clear context on when to use: when evaluating impact of dropping or changing a table. Does not explicitly list alternatives but the sibling tools are all in different domains (defi, gas, nft), so the use case is unique. Slight gap: no explicit when-not-to-use guidance.

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