requirements_check

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

The annotations already cover the safety profile (read-only, idempotent, closed-world, non-destructive), so the bar is lower. The description still adds a real behavioral constraint — it will not invent SLAs or budgets — which tells the agent what the tool deliberately omits. It says nothing about depth or limits of the analysis, which keeps it at 4 rather than 5.

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, front-loaded with the action, no filler. The exclusion clause is placed where it does the most work.

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?

The tool has an output schema and rich annotations, so return values and safety are covered elsewhere. However, with three required inputs at 0% schema description coverage and no parameter guidance in the description, an agent cannot confidently populate requirements and constraints. This is the main completeness gap.

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% across three required parameters, so the description must compensate and does not. 'Workload brief' only loosely hints at the workload string; it says nothing about what belongs in requirements versus constraints, how the two arrays differ, or how they interact.

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?

It names a specific transformation (workload brief → explicit requirements, gaps, research questions) and draws a boundary ('no inferred SLA or budget') that separates it from slo_budget and capacity_plan. It stops short of 5 because the resource is described only in abstract nouns, and it never names a sibling explicitly.

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 exclusion clause 'No inferred SLA or budget' implies an alternative exists for those concerns, which is useful routing. But there is no explicit 'use this when…' statement and no named alternative, so the agent must infer when to pick this over capacity_plan or slo_budget.

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