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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint; the description adds substantial context beyond that — that rules are live and supersede any cached/documented version, the seven-group return shape, and how to interpret the `retired`, `evidence: null`, and `proposed` markers. That last point is a real behavioral constraint ('they are not binding — do not draft against them').

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 access restriction and purpose, then the call-to-action, then a bulleted breakdown of the tricky fields. It is on the long side for a zero-argument tool, but nearly every sentence carries operational instruction rather than filler.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must explain the return value — and it does, enumerating the seven groups and calling out the three semantics that could otherwise be misread. An agent has everything needed to call it and interpret the result.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies and there is no schema gap to compensate for. The description instead spends its words on return semantics, which is a reasonable substitute but not strictly a parameter concern.

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 concrete resource and scope: 'Who Coderbuds sells to and what an opener is allowed to say — the rules behind the Who it is for tab of /admin/prospects.' It is immediately distinguishable from get-prospect-worklist-tool (who to write to) and propose-icp-rule-tool (adding rules), both named 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?

Explicit temporal guidance: 'Call this before writing anything to a prospect, alongside get-prospect-worklist.' It also names the alternative for the out-of-scope case: 'Use propose-icp-rule when outbound teaches you something this list does not say.' Both the when and the when-not are covered.

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