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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior, and the description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: the sign-in prerequisite, the need to pass the session on every subsequent Datailo call, and what the response contains (services to enable, stages, checkpoints, work-product template). It stops short of describing error behavior when the service/name pair is unknown.

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?

Two dense sentences with no filler; the auth prerequisite is correctly front-loaded. The second sentence packs both the per-step annotation behavior and the job-name variant into one clause, which reads slightly run-on but still earns its length.

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 must describe returns, and it does outline the job contents (services, stages, playbooks, checkpoints, template). However, it omits the shape of the returned steps, pagination/size behavior, and valid 'service' values, so an agent can call it but cannot fully anticipate the response.

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 only 33% – only session is documented in the schema – so the description must compensate. It does explain one service value ('datailo' with a job name yields the whole job) and reinforces session-passing, but it leaves the required 'name' parameter and the remaining service values undefined. Partial compensation only.

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 second sentence states the resource and its scope: it returns one playbook's steps, each annotated with the datailo_invoke call to run it, and notes the service='datailo'+job-name variant that returns the full job. It never names the plural sibling datailo_workflows, so the singular/plural distinction is left implicit, and the purpose is buried behind the auth preamble.

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?

It gives an explicit precondition (call datailo_connect and datailo_connect_verify first, unless already signed in) and routes the agent to datailo_invoke for executing the returned steps. It does not say when to prefer this over datailo_workflows, datailo_plan, or datailo_catalog, so sibling selection is only partly resolved.

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