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

Annotations only include false hints; the description adds substantial behavioral detail: stages validate in order, repairs propagate forward, TTL bounds the run, and it returns chain_id. These are meaningful traits not captured elsewhere.

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 sentences: first states the core action and behavior, second differentiates siblings, third states return value. Zero 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 4-param tool with no output schema, the description covers core semantics, ordering, repair behavior, TTL, return value, and sibling relationships. It leaves some edge cases (prerequisites, failure modes) but remains remarkably complete for its complexity.

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 description coverage is 100%, so each parameter (api_key, blueprint, stages, ttl) already has clear documentation. The description's mention of TTL bounds the run reinforces ttl's schema but adds no new syntax or format. It earns baseline score only.

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 ('Create') and resource ('multi-agent sequential chain'), then details its key behavioral properties (ordered validation, repair propagation, TTL bound). It also names sibling tools ('submit_chain_stage', 'handoff_audit') with their distinct roles, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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?

Explicitly identifies two sibling tools and their functions, telling the agent when to use them instead of this one: submit_chain_stage advances the chain, handoff_audit verifies transitions. This provides direct alternative guidance.

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