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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/openWorld=false, so the description correctly spends its words on what the annotations cannot say: the 50-client cap, the least-confirmed-first ordering, how confirmation rate is computed, and the exact urgency thresholds. The one undisclosed trait is what happens past 50 clients (truncation? no continuation path).

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?

Front-loaded with the action and scope, then the sampling rule, then the output shape; no filler sentences. The urgency thresholds are dense but each clause carries information the agent needs to interpret results.

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?

Since an output schema exists, the description needn't restate return values, and the urgency scale explanation is a useful addition. But the meaning of firm_id and the behavior at the 50-client boundary are gaps an agent would hit the moment it needs more than the first page.

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 coverage is 0% and the single parameter firm_id is never mentioned in the description. It is optional with an empty-string default, so the agent cannot tell whether omitting it scans the caller's whole book or silently scopes to some default firm — a meaningful ambiguity for a client-facing report.

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 ('Scan the book's active clients ... for incomplete succession planning') with an explicit scope of up to 50 clients ordered least-confirmed first. An agent can tell this is a readiness-gap report, not a client record fetch, without opening any 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?

Usage is only implied by the stated scope — nothing says when to reach for this versus get_client_dossier or get_client_reviews_due, nor any precondition such as firm scoping. The agent must infer the call site from the description alone.

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