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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure and does so thoroughly: static-only analysis, no script execution, missing attributes reported as NOT_ASSESSED rather than runtime failures, and a clear list of the accessor methods it scans for. This is strong, non-misleading behavioral context.

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 dense but efficient, with each clause earning its place: the core action, the extraction mechanism, the static-only limitation, the NOT_ASSESSED semantics, and the routing to runtime alternatives. The lens list partially duplicates the enum in the schema, but the added release labels make it acceptable.

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?

The description explains the tool's inputs, what it reports, and its limits, which is especially important because no output schema exists. However, it stops short of specifying the concrete shape of the evidence report, such as an attribute-to-status mapping. This is a minor gap in an otherwise complete definition.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The schema already documents source as Jython/JavaScript up to 64 KiB and lens as an enum. The description adds useful context such as the MXAPIWODETAIL dictionary and lens labels, but it does not materially change or deepen parameter semantics.

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 states a specific action and resource: 'Statically check a WORKORDER Object launch point Automation Script' against a release lens's MXAPIWODETAIL dictionary. It also explains exactly what the tool extracts and reports, which clearly differentiates it from record-lookup, changelog, and lifecycle sibling tools.

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 explicitly marks the tool as static evidence only and says it does not run the script. It then directs users who need a real pass/fail/skip verdict to the CLI or browser runner, providing explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance. It also enumerates the five supported lenses, so selection context is unambiguous.

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