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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds rich behavioral detail: the distinction between radar items (pursuits) and LANDED items (real partnerships), the status meanings, and the explicit statement that this is public data with no auth. It also clarifies the data source equivalence. This significantly enhances agent understanding beyond 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 lengthy but information-dense. It front-loads the core purpose, then details the milestones, statuses, filtering, and data equivalence. Every sentence contributes useful information, though the all-caps and formatting may reduce readability. It is structured logically and could be slightly trimmed without losing value, but it earns a strong score.

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 no output schema, the description thoroughly explains what data will be returned: the milestones, statuses, blurbs, WHY IT FITS, and links. It covers all parameters, their constraints, and the authentication requirement. For a read-only data retrieval tool, nothing essential is missing; an agent can call it correctly with full understanding.

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 100%, so both parameters (query and track) are already described. The description adds valuable semantics: it lists the valid track values, clarifies that prefixes work, and explains the query matching behavior with examples. This goes beyond the schema's basic descriptions, justifying a score above the baseline of 3.

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 opens with 'ROKHA'S FLIGHT PLAN — ONE MILESTONE MAP, AS DATA', clearly stating the tool's purpose as a read-only data retrieval tool for Rokha's roadmap. It enumerates the specific content (partnerships, pursuits, statuses, links) and distinguishes itself from other tools by its unique focus on roadmap data.

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 explains how to use the optional track and query parameters, and notes that the data is public and requires no auth. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when to avoid this tool, but given its unique scope among siblings, the guidance is sufficient. A slight deduction for not explicitly stating when not to use it.

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