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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: blockers are comments flagged as blocking and are attributed to the raiser, which distinguishes them from confidence check-ins. It doesn't mention volume, ordering, or whether multiple initiatives can be queried at once.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and followed by definitional context and usage examples. No 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?

A read-only tool with a full input schema, an output schema, and complete annotations; the description covers what it returns conceptually and when to call it. Adequate — the missing piece is only the boundary against the confidence-check sibling.

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 100% and the single parameter's description already explains partial, case-insensitive matching, so the description adds nothing about the parameter. It does scope the query to 'one initiative', but that is implied by the required singular parameter. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does all the work.

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 ('get the blockers currently raised against one initiative') and defines what a blocker actually is, which is non-obvious domain vocabulary. It contrasts with confidence check-ins, though it doesn't name the sibling tool genchi_get_confidence explicitly.

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 concrete triggering questions ('what is blocking the migration', 'why is confidence dropping'), which is clear usage context. It stops short of stating when NOT to use it — e.g. that the confidence-over-time question might be better served by genchi_get_confidence.

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