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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, but the description adds substantial non-obvious behavior: the shot's own bean is resolved using pulled_at rather than the active profile, it is echoed as bean_context, and the engine ignores free-text notes while relying only on metrics and sensory_tags. The warning about in-range tasteless shots returning 'balanced' is especially valuable.

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?

Three dense sentences each earn their place: the first front-loads the operation and outputs, the second explains bean resolution safety, and the third gives the critical data prerequisite and failure mode. There is no filler or repetition.

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 one optional parameter and an output schema, the description fully covers the purpose, input default, bean-resolution behavior, data prerequisites, and a key failure mode. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to call this tool correctly.

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 only parameter, shot_id, is fully documented in the schema including its default behavior. The description adds no new syntactic or semantic detail about the parameter beyond contextualizing older shots, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate given full schema coverage.

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 ('Evaluate shot metrics') and names concrete outputs: ranked hypotheses, flip-flop warnings, and fatigue warnings. It is clearly distinct from the many data-management siblings, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with diagnose_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?

It provides a clear prerequisite: taste feedback must be recorded as sensory_tags via log_shot or update_shot before diagnosing, with a concrete consequence if ignored. It also explains that diagnosing older or differently-filed shots is safe. It does not state explicit when-not-to-use cases or name alternative tools, so it stops short of a 5.

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