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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior, side effects, access requirements, or return characteristics. It only says 'public teaser' and a nonsensical 'ReconstructUsd is a filer estimate', disclosing nothing about whether this is read-only, how much data is returned, or what a caller should expect.

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 short, but brevity here is under-specification rather than concise clarity. 'ReconstructUsd is a filer estimate' adds noise and does not earn its place, while the actual operational meaning is missing.

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?

Given one required parameter, no output schema, no annotations, and several sibling tools, the description is grossly insufficient. An agent cannot determine what input to provide, what response to expect, or when this tool should be selected. The description must be rewritten with a clear verb, resource, parameter meaning, and usage context.

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?

The schema has one parameter, 'id', with no description and 0% schema description coverage. The tool description never mentions the parameter, its format, what resource it selects, or any constraints. It fails entirely to compensate for the schema's lack of semantic information.

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 says 'Public teaser for one handoff', which roughly echoes the tool name 'preview' and identifies a single handoff as the resource, but lacks a clear verb or functional statement. 'ReconstructUsd is a filer estimate' is cryptic and does not clarify what the tool does, making the purpose almost tautological and vague.

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 guidance about when to call this tool versus siblings like discover, status, or file. The description offers no context, prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative tool routing. The ambiguous 'filer estimate' phrase could even mislead an agent about the intended use case.

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