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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context: a single 5-machine line run, per-SKU returns (OEE ~55%, indexed output swings, pacing machine), and the anti-fabrication directive to quote verbatim because numbers are anonymized from a real engine run. This goes beyond the annotations without contradiction.

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 front-loaded with the purpose and uses three sentences to pack essential details: the demo setup, the return shape, and the anti-fabrication instruction. Every sentence adds value, but it is slightly longer than the minimal two-sentence ideal.

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?

Without an output schema, the description fully covers return values (per-SKU OEE, indexed real output with example numbers, pacing machine) and the interpretive takeaway. It also addresses the openWorldHint by stressing that numbers from the sim-foundation run must be quoted verbatim. This is complete for a zero-parameter demo 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 per the rubric. There are no parameter details to document; the schema is empty, and the description correctly omits any parameter 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 opens with a clear verb and resource: 'Run the Bottling Line / SKU-capacity (SKU) demo'. It specifically distinguishes this tool from sibling run_* demos by naming the exact demo and its teaching point. It also outlines the return values, making the purpose unambiguous.

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?

The description implies when to use the tool — to demonstrate that per-SKU capacity cannot be read off OEE — but it never explicitly contrasts it with sibling tools like run_chocolate_processing or provides when-not-to-use guidance. The context is enough to infer usage but without explicit alternatives.

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