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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the value is null while the org is unclassified, and the data is sourced from a once-a-minute capacity check, which signals staleness/freshness to the caller. It does not discuss auth or permission requirements.

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 sentences with no filler, and the returned fields are packed efficiently. The first sentence is a long triple-clause construction that is somewhat dense but every clause carries information, so it stays close to optimal.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining the return value, and it does so by naming the three result components. Combined with annotations that cover the safety profile, the definition is nearly complete; only permission/authorization context 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% for the single orgId parameter, and the schema already explains it is required only for a caller in several orgs. The description alludes to 'the org's missions' but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 names a specific resource (org's agent capacity against its limit) and enumerates the three things it returns: current usage vs limit, queued missions and why, and whether the platform is fully saturated. It is far more specific than a tautology, but it never contrasts itself with siblings like get_mission or get_agents_override, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

There is no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-tool guidance. The only contextual clue is the parenthetical about the once-a-minute capacity check, which implies freshness rather than routing. An agent must infer on its own when this tool is preferable to inspecting a mission directly.

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