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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: it discloses that secrets are masked in the env output and enumerates the returned signals (cost, sleep time, boot files). It doesn't state auth requirements, which keeps it short of a 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?

One front-loaded sentence with no filler; each item in the enumeration is a distinct output field. The comma-list style is dense but every element earns its place, though a slightly clearer framing verb would help.

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?

For a read-only status tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description adequately enumerates what comes back, including the non-obvious secret-masking behavior. The only gap is the unexplained identifier format of the single required parameter.

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 required parameter 'briq' is documented only by a regex pattern. The description doesn't clarify that 'briq' is the bq_-prefixed identifier or how to obtain one (e.g. from briq_list), leaving the agent to infer parameter meaning from the sibling tools.

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 resource (one briq) and enumerates exactly what the state report contains: stop reason, last exit, endpoints, env, boot files, cost, sleep schedule. An agent can tell it apart from briq_list (plural inventory) without opening a schema. It loses a point only because 'State of one briq' is a noun phrase rather than an explicit verb and the singular-vs-list distinction is left implicit.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use statement or named alternative, but listing 'why it stopped' and 'its last process exit' strongly implies the diagnostic use case. The agent must infer that this is the tool for post-mortem investigation versus briq_logs or briq_exec_result.

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