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

Annotations already cover readOnly/openWorld/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds substantial behavioral context: the event lifecycle, the three resolution outcomes, the epistemic caveat about still_dark (never saying 'confirmed dark'), and the response's coverage and tally contents. This goes well beyond the structured 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 front-loaded with the core distinction (events, not a leads snapshot), and every clause adds necessary domain semantics, wording constraints, or usage guidance. It is dense but not bloated, and no sentence is wasted.

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 domain complexity and the absence of an output schema, the description is unusually complete: it defines open/resolved/void, explains the meaning of still_dark, names the sibling tool for the alternative use case, and summarizes what the response contains. Nothing essential for selecting or invoking this tool is missing.

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 covers both parameters at 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description enriches 'status' by explaining what resolved means (reappeared/still_dark) and what void means, but it leaves a small ambiguity around 'resolved' as a status filter versus 'void' also being a resolution outcome in the lifecycle.

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 the exact resource (dark-contact events from the Shadow Fleet board), contrasts it with a leads snapshot, and later explicitly distinguishes it from query_shadow_fleet_leads. The purpose is clear and the tool is readily differentiated from siblings.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('what went dark / what came back' questions) and names the alternative for the current ranked list (query_shadow_fleet_leads). This gives an agent direct routing guidance without requiring inference.

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