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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the firm-wide scope and that results concern incomplete succession planning, but says nothing about permissions, how 'urgency' is ranked, whether results are ordered, or what the scan touches. For an unannotated tool this is thin.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the scope and the discriminating condition arrive immediately. It is efficient, though arguably too terse to cover the gaps elsewhere.

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 values needn't be explained. However, for a scan tool with zero annotations and a 0%-documented parameter, the description leaves real gaps: firm_id behavior and what makes a client 'urgent' remain undefined.

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 0% and the single parameter (firm_id, default '') is undocumented in both schema and description. The phrase 'firm-wide' hints the tool is firm-scoped but never explains what firm_id does or what an empty value means, so the agent must guess.

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 names a specific action ('urgency scan'), a resource ('succession planning'), and a scope ('firm-wide'), plus the qualifying condition ('incomplete succession planning (EAM)'). An agent can tell it apart from generic siblings like get_eam_clients or get_client_dossier, though it doesn't explicitly name the alternative it differs from.

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 outcome statement ('identifies clients with incomplete succession planning') implies the use case — assessing succession risk across a firm — but the description never states when to reach for this versus get_eam_clients or get_client_dossier, nor any prerequisites or exclusions.

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