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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that nothing executes, that free usage is watch-only and logged for the weekly report, and that the return is a warning plus a verdict. It stops short of stating permission/auth requirements or threshold behavior when floor_mb is violated.

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, front-loaded with the pre-flight action, and each sentence adds something (what to send, what you get back, free-tier behavior). The closing clause 'Free watch-only logs would_offload for the weekly report; nothing runs' is slightly compressed and takes a re-read.

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?

With no output schema, the description sensibly describes the return as a memory warning plus a run_local/offload verdict, which is the key decision the agent needs. It omits the meaning of floor_mb and the total_mb parameter, so it is not fully complete for a 6-parameter tool.

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 already 83%, so the schema documents most parameters. The description reinforces free_mb with concrete sources (free -m, os.freemem()) and describes job, but floor_mb and total_mb are never explained and total_mb has no schema description either, leaving one parameter undocumented in both places.

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 states a concrete verb and resource: send free memory plus the job you're about to run, and receive a memory warning plus a run_local/offload verdict. That is specific enough to distinguish it from run_job (it explicitly says 'nothing runs'), though it never names a sibling directly.

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 a clear trigger ('Before a heavy job') and the action to take when the answer is to offload ('offload with the provider to use'). It also explains the free-tier path (watch-only, logs would_offload for the weekly report), but does not explicitly route the agent to run_job or weekly_report by name.

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