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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behaviors: flags inconsistencies between accept-as-is disposition and corrective_action containing physical work, returns a download link expiring in ~48 hours, and states that submitted data is not stored. These are meaningful operational traits beyond what the schema captures.

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 three sentences, front-loads the core purpose, and every clause provides distinct value — content composition, a validation flag, authority note, output expiry, and privacy. No filler or redundant restatement of the title.

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 complex 18-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what the PDF contains, how output is delivered, expiry, and privacy. It also alerts users to a critical validation behavior. The schema handles most parameter details, and the description fills the remaining conceptual gaps.

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 72%, and the description adds conceptual grouping of parameters (root cause prose or 5-Whys chain, disposition with actions, blank review blocks). It also hints at a relationship between resolution and corrective_action by flagging contradictions. While it does not describe every parameter, it supplements the schema meaningfully.

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 'Generate a formal Nonconformance Report PDF' — a specific verb and resource — and enumerates the report contents (identification, description, violated requirement, containment, root cause, disposition, actions). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling generators like steel_rfi_generate or steel_rfq_generate by naming the exact deliverable.

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 establishes when the tool is appropriate by defining the deliverable and its mandatory elements. It also cautions that the disposition decision belongs to the responsible quality authority, implying the tool assists but does not decide. However, it does not explicitly say when not to use it or name alternatives, though siblings are contextually different.

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