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

The description discloses atomic claim behavior, ordering, skip rules, and the difference between normal and dry_run mode. This goes beyond the minimal annotations (destructiveHint false) by explaining concurrency safety and return values. No contradiction with 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 a single dense sentence that front-loads the tool's purpose and includes significant behavioral details. Every clause adds value, such as skip rules and return values, without fluff.

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 dispatcher tool with no output schema, the description explains input (dry_run), behavior (atomic, ordered, skipping), and output (claimed task + systems or reason none free). It is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 describes dry_run as 'Peek without claiming', and the description reiterates this. However, project_id lacks any description in the schema, and the description does not explain its purpose or filtering behavior. With 50% schema_description_coverage, the description fails to compensate for the undocumented parameter.

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 clearly states the tool's function: atomically pick and claim the next task to build. It specifies the algorithm (walks milestones in order, skips human-only and conflicting tasks) and distinguishes it from siblings via the DISPATCHER label. This clearly separates it from tools like get_workflow or update_task.

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 implies usage in multi-agent scenarios via 'DISPATCHER (multi-agent)' and explains when tasks are skipped. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or give when-not-to-use guidance. Clear context but no exclusions.

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