brief

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context by stating the tool is a composite read and enumerating its returned facets. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them, though it does not discuss cost, pagination, or response structure.

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 sentences, both dense and purposeful. The first sentence front-loads the core value proposition and the second gives a precise sibling contrast. There is no filler or repetition of schema content.

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 carries the burden of explaining what the call returns, and it does so by listing the major data categories. The terms 'ratchet mark' and 'change-coupling partners' rely on domain context that sibling tools help establish, but the overall picture is sufficiently complete for selection and invocation. Optional parameters are not mentioned, though the schema already documents them.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3 and the schema already explains all three parameters clearly. The description adds no parameter-specific details, which is acceptable because the parameter descriptions are already strong. It does not need to compensate for any schema gaps.

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 clearly identifies the tool as a single-call read that gathers a function's full context, enumerating the included data: scored row, ratchet mark, uncovered lines, duplication twins, churn, and change-coupling partners. It lacks an explicit imperative verb like 'retrieve' or 'get', but 'the deepest single read' communicates the action and scope effectively. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'explain', helping an agent understand its unique role.

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 description provides clear usage context by calling this 'the deepest single read' and positioning 'explain' as 'the slimmer history-only view.' This implies an agent should choose this tool when comprehensive context is needed and 'explain' when only history matters. It does not explicitly mention exclusions relative to other siblings like 'duplication' or 'coupling', but the selected contrast is useful and concrete.

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