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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It states it describes capabilities, inputs, outputs, implying a read-only introspection. However, it fails to explicitly state it has no side effects or authentication requirements, which is minimal for a safe tool.

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?

Single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. Every part adds information: subject ('Fleet-standard self-description'), scope ('capabilities, inputs, outputs').

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?

Tool is simple with no params and an output schema exists. Description is minimal but sufficient for a self-description tool. However, it does not hint at output format or structure, leaving some uncertainty for the agent.

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?

Tool has 0 parameters and 100% schema coverage. Per instructions, baseline is 4. Description adds no parameter info, which is acceptable since none exist.

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?

Description clearly states 'self-description: capabilities, inputs, outputs' indicating the tool describes itself. It distinguishes from sibling 'translate_narrative' by being a meta-tool. However, the phrase 'Fleet-standard' is jargon that may not be universal, slightly reducing clarity.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling 'translate_narrative' or any alternatives. The description does not mention context or exclusions, leaving the agent without decision support.

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