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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: it discloses the exclusion set (admin routes, operator pages, feature-flag internals) and that labels are 'current', signaling state-dependent output.

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, each doing distinct work: what it returns, when to use it, what it excludes. Purpose is front-loaded and there is no 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?

An output schema exists, so return-shape explanation is not required. For a zero-parameter read tool, the description covers purpose, trigger, and scope boundaries fully; an agent needs nothing else to select and call it.

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 tool takes no parameters, so the baseline is 4. The schema and description both confirm 'no inputs', and there is nothing further a parameter discussion could add.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Returns ... Hedgr navigation targets') plus the exact payload (current tab/subtab labels and what each surface is used for). This is clearly distinguishable from every sibling, all of which return financial or account data rather than UI navigation metadata.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger condition: use for 'where do I find this in Hedgr' questions. It also bounds scope by exclusion (admin routes, operator pages, feature-flag internals). It does not name an alternative tool, but no sibling competes for this intent, so the guidance is sufficient.

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