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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive safety, so the bar is lower. The description adds meaningful behavioral facts beyond them: only live, unexpired promotions are returned, evidence limits are included, and private test fixtures are never exposed. That is real return-scope context an agent cannot get from the 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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, then the return constraints. Every clause earns its place with no filler.

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 read-only, no-output-schema tool whose annotations carry the safety profile, the description adequately covers what is returned and what is excluded. It is slightly thin on how to resolve the three required scope identifiers if unknown, which is the only notable 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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It names all three concepts (databank, task family, tested model) and stresses they must be exact, but provides no value formats, accepted ranges, or guidance on resolving unknown scope values, leaving gaps against the 0% 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 gives a specific verb (Retrieve) and resource (reviewed Frontier guidance) with a precise scope (exact databank, task family, tested model). An agent can distinguish this from the broad discovery siblings like list_daystruct_guidance_scopes and discover_daystruct_capabilities, though no sibling is named 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?

It implies you must already know the exact databank, task family, and model, but never states when to reach for this tool versus list_daystruct_guidance_scopes or get_daystruct_validated_guidance alternatives. No exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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