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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false), so the burden is low. The description adds useful scope context by listing the covered topic areas and the three sibling tools whose `blueprint` argument it explains, making it clear this is a static reference rather than something with side effects.

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?

One long but information-dense sentence listing covered topics, followed immediately by the front-loaded imperative 'Read it before writing a blueprint.' The topic enumeration is long, though every item earns its place by telling the agent whether the construct it needs is documented.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the description covers scope, coverage areas, and the call condition. For a zero-parameter static reference tool, nothing an agent needs is missing.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the rubric baseline is 4. The description goes slightly beyond by identifying the `blueprint` argument it exists to document and the tools that accept it, but there are no parameters for it to clarify.

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 states a specific resource — the engine's full design language — and enumerates the exact constructs it documents (roles, distributions, formulas, sequences, aggregates, windows, lifecycles). It explicitly ties itself to the sibling tools that consume the blueprint argument (generate_dataset, start_generation, validate_blueprint), so an agent can distinguish it from them without opening any schema.

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 closing directive 'Read it before writing a blueprint' gives clear, actionable usage context and implicitly covers the when-not case (you don't need it if you aren't authoring a blueprint). It stops short of naming an explicit alternative or exclusion, so it falls just short of a 5.

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