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 meaningful behavior: a credit is consumed, credential-shaped values inside the intake are refused, and five report artifacts are produced. It omits what happens on validation failure (credit refunded or not), runtime expectations, and idempotency, which matter for a paid one-shot operation.

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?

Front-loads the action and the return value, then the cost/auth prerequisite, then intake shape and the credential restriction. Dense but every sentence carries information; only the parenthetical format list and the schema URL could be trimmed.

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?

For a tool with a nested intake object, no output schema, and no annotations, the description still covers the return payload, the payment/authentication prerequisite, the intake contract and its schema location, and a validation rule. Failure and refund behavior are the remaining gap, but the agent can call it correctly from what is 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 only 33%, but the description compensates for all three parameters: 'credit' is a web run-credit id, 'api_key' needs a balance, and 'intake' is SanityCheckIntakeV1 with sections a-g plus a schema URL. The either/or relationship between credit and api_key is conveyed, though the external schema link leaves nested intake semantics off-tool.

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 ('Run the full Technical Architecture Sanity Check on YOUR intake') and names the return payload (verdict summary + report links in five formats). It is clearly distinct from catalogue/credit_status siblings in substance, but never explicitly names sanity_check_sample, which is the closest ambiguous alternative.

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 clear preconditions — it costs one run credit and you must pass either a 'credit' id or an 'api_key' with balance — which tells the agent what it needs before calling. It does not explicitly say when to prefer sanity_check_sample or sanity_check_catalogue instead, so no exclusion guidance.

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