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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a useful behavioral clarification: it does not authorize or execute market access. This is valuable context beyond the annotations, though it does not disclose details like whether the tool returns a list, a summary, or a status.

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?

The description is two short sentences with no wasted words. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the clarifying negation is placed second. Every word earns its place.

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 a zero-parameter, read-only, idempotent tool with no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It tells the agent what the tool does and what it does not do. The only minor gap is that it does not describe the shape or content of the returned information, but with no output schema and no parameters, this is a small omission.

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 has zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics burden on the description. The schema is empty and coverage is 100%, meaning there is nothing for the description to clarify. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for a no-parameter tool.

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 verb ('describe') and resource ('governed local capability support'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that validate, preview, read, export, or fetch. It is not a tautology and gives an agent a clear sense of what the tool does. However, it could be slightly more explicit about what 'capability support' encompasses.

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 implies this is a read-only informational tool, and the sibling names suggest it is the right choice when an agent needs to understand governed local capabilities rather than validate, preview, or execute. It does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, but the verb 'describe' and the negation 'does not authorize or execute' provide reasonable context.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral context by clarifying that the returned evidence is data, not instructions, and that the handoff is existing and governed. It does not discuss edge cases or error behavior, so it stops short of 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 short sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states the operation and target; the second adds an important clarification about the output. The structure is front-loaded and scannable.

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 a simple, one-parameter, read-only, idempotent tool, the description is nearly sufficient. It names the target, constrains it to finalized existing packages, and clarifies output semantics. A little more detail about the output shape or error cases would make it fully complete.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It adds meaning by saying the operation targets 'one finalized control package,' implying the control_package_id must refer to a finalized package. However, it does not explicitly describe the parameter or its role beyond this indirect reference.

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 uses a specific verb ('Export') and names a precise resource ('existing governed AI-ready handoff for one finalized control package'). It is clear about scope and constraints, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools such as market_read_result or market_fetch_evidence.

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 phrase 'for one finalized control package' and 'existing governed AI-ready handoff' gives clear context: this tool is appropriate only when the package is finalized and the handoff already exists. However, it does not name alternatives or explicitly state when not to use this tool.

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

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, so the description carries the burden of explaining side effects or non-idempotency. It adds only the vague terms 'bounded' and 'conversation-triggered' without clarifying what that means for behavior, nor does it disclose any effects beyond 'retrieval'.

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?

The description is a single sentence with no fluff, but it is under-specified rather than concisely informative. It lacks front-loaded crucial details and reads as a placeholder.

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 high complexity (nested object with many fields, no output schema) yet the description offers almost no guidance on invocation, return expectations, or pitfalls. An agent would struggle to use it correctly based solely on this.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It merely refers to 'a canonical execute-mode request' without explaining the request's structure, required fields, or how to construct it. Given the heavily nested schema, this is a critical omission.

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 identifies a verb ('retrieval') and resource ('market-evidence') and mentions 'execute-mode request' which hints at differentiation from preview/validate siblings. However, the terms 'bounded' and 'conversation-triggered' are vague and unexplained, leaving the precise purpose ambiguous.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies an execute-mode context but never names sibling tools or conditions for selection. The agent must infer usage from the phrase 'execute-mode request' alone.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds important operational context beyond that: the preview is offline, it is governed, and it never authorizes execution. It does not describe response/caching behavior, but the annotation coverage lowers the burden here. No contradiction.

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, no filler, and the most important boundary, 'never authorizes execution', is placed immediately after the purpose. Every word earns its place.

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 a tool with a nested request schema and no output schema, the description covers the main semantic boundary but not enough useful context. It calls the result a preview, but does not explain what the preview contains, what the agent should expect in the response, or where this fits among the sibling tools.

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 carries the burden of explaining parameters. The only parameter reference is essentially a repetition of the schema's own request type name ('Unified Market Evidence Request'), plus the word 'canonical'. It does not add practical meaning about how to construct the request or how execution_mode must be treated.

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 verb ('Build'), a clear resource ('offline governed preview'), and the source (a canonical Unified Market Evidence Request). It also explicitly states that a preview never authorizes execution, which distinguishes it from any execution-oriented sibling and from the target request itself.

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 intended use is implied: call this when you want a governed preview without execution. However, the description does not explicitly state when to use it versus siblings such as market_validate_request or market_fetch_evidence, nor does it name the alternative for actual execution.

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

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is well covered. The description adds a small behavioral confirmation with 'This cannot authorize or execute', but it does not disclose error behavior, result scope, or other constraints beyond what the annotations already imply.

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 with no filler. The core operation is front-loaded, and the important cannot-authorize/execute exclusion comes immediately after. Every sentence earns its place.

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 a simple one-parameter tool, the definition is functional: the agent knows what to call it with and the intended purpose. Yet it does not explain what the 'governed Result' consists of or what the return value looks like, and there is no output schema to supply that missing information.

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 schema has no description coverage, and the tool description does not meaningfully explain control_package_id beyond referring to a finalized control package. The pattern and length constraints in the schema are present, but the description does not compensate for the 0% coverage by explaining what the ID is, how to obtain it, or what constraints are semantically important.

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 names a specific verb ('Read or verify') and resource ('governed Result for one finalized control package'), so the core purpose is clear. It does not explicitly compare itself to siblings like market_validate_request, market_preview_request, or market_fetch_evidence, though it gives enough scope to be reasonably distinguishable.

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 phrase 'for one finalized control package' gives a useful when-to-use condition, and 'This cannot authorize or execute' hints at a boundary. However, it never names alternative tools or explains when the sibling tools should be used instead, so the guidance remains implied rather than explicit.

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

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

Annotations already carry readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral trait beyond annotations - 'Preview and validation never authorize execution' - which tells the agent this tool cannot trigger downstream authorized work. It does not disclose validation failure behavior or what the outcome is, but given the annotations the bar is modest.

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 with no filler; the verb-first opener 'Validate...' is front-loaded and the guarantee about non-execution is placed second where it lands logically. Slightly more structure (maybe a one-line note about validation output) could have covered the only real gap, but as written every word earns its place.

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 a tool taking a deeply nested 1-required-parameter schema, containing no output schema, and having little about schema descriptions, the omission of what validation actually returns (errors, report, success flag) is a major gap. The wording also gives no distinction from market_preview_request or guidance on where validation fits in the workflow with the five other siblings. The complexity bar is high, and this description does not meet it.

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 fully carries the responsibility for explaining the 'request' parameter, and it adds nothing beyond calling it 'one canonical Unified Market Evidence Request.' The word 'canonical' hints at a structured contract already defined by the schema, but there is no compensation for the missing description fields, and the agent is left to infer the meaning of nested required fields like execution_mode, data_needs, and targets from pale enum/type information alone.

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 verb ('Validate') and a specific resource ('one canonical Unified Market Evidence Request'), and the second sentence explicitly carves it out from execution ('never authorize execution'). It does not, however, differentiate from the directly adjacent sibling market_preview_request, whose name is the only signal for what makes validation distinct from preview.

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 gives no guidance on when to validate versus when to preview, read, or fetch evidence. The only inferred usage cue is a negative one - 'never authorize execution' - but nothing tells an agent that market_validate_request is the correct step before submitting, or which sibling covers the same input.

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