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

Goes well beyond the annotations: discloses cost model (one metered AI call when the AI pass runs, heuristics free and always returned), degradation behavior (AI pass cut off, failed, or not run), and whether a failed attempt was charged. The "Read-only" framing is reconciled by the explicit disclosure of the metered call as the only side effect, matching readOnlyHint=false.

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 purpose in the first clause, then cost, then filtering, then the sibling hand-off — a sensible priority order with no filler. Slightly dense: the em-dash parenthetical and the closing sentence about reply states pack a lot into one line.

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?

With no output schema, the description still tells the agent what comes back (per-suggestion confidence and reason, plus whether the AI pass ran/was cut off/failed/was charged). Given three parameters and a nondestructive generator, an agent has everything needed to call it, interpret results, and route the follow-up.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds required/optional framing and clarifies that entityType and entityId act as a combined filter ("keep only suggestions involving one entity"), which the truncated schema strings don't fully convey. It does not explain the semantics of passing entityId without entityType, which is the one remaining ambiguity.

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+resource ("Suggest cross-module links a project is missing") and enumerates the link classes it produces (story↔component, ADR↔story, plus AI-budget-gated categories). It is unambiguously distinct from the sibling stride.create_cross_link, which it names as the acceptance path rather than a competing suggestion source.

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 context for when this runs and what to do with the output ("accept a suggestion with stride.create_cross_link") plus how to narrow results with entityType/entityId. It does not explicitly exclude the adjacent case of reviewing existing links, which a reader must infer belongs to stride.list_cross_links.

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