interference

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive safety, so the description doesn't need to cover that. It adds the useful default scope behavior ('empty list = all document bodies'), but says nothing about return format or error conditions.

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?

Two short sentences: purpose first, then the default scope. No wasted words, well front-loaded.

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 an interference detection tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It leaves the format of 'objects' and the effect of 'include_coincident' unexplained, so an agent cannot invoke it confidently.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It only partially explains the 'objects' parameter (empty list means all bodies), but not its expected format, and says nothing about the 'include_coincident' parameter.

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 the resource (intersections of bodies) and adds a scope default (empty list = all bodies of the document). The purpose is clear, but it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like cross_sections or measure.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as cross_sections, compare, or locate_defects. Only the default behavior is mentioned.

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