get_reachability_verdicts

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses 'Pure derivation', 'NOT persisted', and 'same result every time', indicating a read-only deterministic computation with no 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?

Four sentences, each earns its place: purpose, optional param, derivation logic, determinism. 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?

Given output schema exists, description needn't explain returns. It covers target, optional param, derivation, persistence, and determinism. Could mention prerequisites (model existence) but not essential.

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 67% (model_id and co_id described, server_version not). The description adds context only for `co_id` (skips cross-CO loop). Server_version remains undocumented in both schema and description, so marginal value beyond schema.

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 states the tool 'Composer verdicts for every live CO on the model', using specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like `get_reach_verdicts` by emphasizing 'every live CO' and pure derivation.

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 explicit context: optional `co_id` for single verdict, and re-running yields same result for verification. However, no explicit when-not or alternatives compared to sibling `get_reach_verdicts`.

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