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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds invocation context such as 'one op per call' and the 'op=help' escape hatch, but it does not describe output behavior, error modes, or rate limits.

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 a single dense but front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the op list is compact. Readability suffers from semicolon-separated jargon, but every clause contributes an operation or argument hint.

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?

Given a 17-op dispatch tool with an opaque args object and no output schema, the description provides only terse operation glosses and an op=help pointer. It is minimally adequate for routing if the agent calls help first, but it leaves parameter meaning and sibling differentiation incomplete.

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 0%, so the description must carry the burden. It does list argument names per operation (e.g., estimate(jtbd, workload), stack_delta(providers, since)) and points to op=help, which is meaningful compensation, but the argument names themselves are unexplained jargon.

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 identifies the tool as a multi-op lookup surface ('Lookups beyond one pick') and enumerates each operation with a short gloss, so the overall purpose is clear. It does not distinguish this tool from its siblings decide, rescue, or session_brief, and the phrase 'beyond one pick' is somewhat cryptic.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings or when not to use it. The op list implies that specific operations exist, but the description never states selection criteria, prerequisites, or alternatives.

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