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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine domain context beyond that: it defines fci_value as deferred renewal cost over replacement value and warns it is NOT a 0-100 score, which materially affects interpretation. It does not describe return shape or pagination, keeping it below 5.

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 load-bearing: definition, interpretation scale with explicit disambiguation, and sibling routing. Front-loaded and free of 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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by explaining the units and interpretation of the key fci_value field. Pagination behavior is left to the schema, which documents it thoroughly, so nothing critical is missing, though return-field structure is only partially addressed.

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% and the description adds no parameter-level detail (page, per_page, site_id are all documented in the schema). Baseline 3 applies when structured fields carry the 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List ... FCI history for sites') and explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling show_site_fci_trend by naming the alternative and its condition. An agent can route between the two without opening either schema.

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 alternative ('To chart one site, use show_site_fci_trend') tied to a concrete condition (charting a single site), which is exactly the when-to-use-this-vs-alternative guidance the dimension asks for.

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