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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing externally visible side effects: the window shows on status pages and subscribers are emailed only if the draft said so — the email blast is the highest-risk behavior here and annotations say nothing about it. It also states the return shape and clarifies the idempotentHint with a concrete mechanism ('the same draft id schedules once'), rather than relying on the flag alone.

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 trigger condition, then behavior, then return, then the negative routing case — the most decision-relevant facts come first. Four tight sentences with no filler; even the return-shape clause earns its place because there is no output schema.

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?

For a 2-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers precondition, external side effects, return value, retry semantics, and the routing alternative — everything an agent needs to call it correctly. Nothing material is left to inference.

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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented, and the description adds no format or origin detail beyond the schema's own note that draft_id comes from draft_maintenance. Baseline 3 applies since the schema carries the semantic load for confirm and draft_id.

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 specific verb+resource: it takes an approved draft_maintenance draft and schedules it as a maintenance window. The description also names the counterpart tools (draft_maintenance as the source, update_maintenance as the alternative), so an agent can distinguish it from the ~60 siblings without opening the schema.

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 precondition ('when the user has approved a draft_maintenance draft') and an explicit exclusion with the correct alternative ('Not for changing a window already scheduled: update_maintenance moves, extends, renames or ends it'). The repeat-safety note ('the same draft id schedules once') tells the agent what to do on retry.

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