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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds the response types ('evidenced' vs 'no_evidence_available') and the evidence chain concept, which slightly extends beyond annotations. No contradiction with annotations.

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 concise, front-loaded with the core purpose, and includes an example call. It is well-structured and easy to parse, with all key information in a few sentences.

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 the tool's complexity (enum, optional param, response variants) and lack of output schema, the description is fairly complete. It explains the response shapes and references a companion tool for valid node ids. It could mention more about when to use this over introspection_system_probe or introspection_system_list_nodes, but the core context is present.

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?

Description clarifies node_kind enum values (artifact, tool, tenant) and node_id semantics (path, name, id), plus the optional repo scope. This adds meaning beyond the schema's property types. However, the description doesn't fully compensate for the 0% schema documentation, as it leaves some ambiguity about evidence chains and when repo is needed.

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 returns a confidence number for a federation node with an evidence chain. It distinguishes itself from other introspection tools by specifying the operation (returning confidence) and the resource (federation node). It also provides the response format and an example.

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 context for when to use the tool: to get a confidence score for a node. It also mentions that valid node ids come from introspection_system_list_nodes, which is useful. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or contrast with alternative introspection tools.

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