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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: conditional output based on companyId, 'Speech-safe' voice semantics, and the instruction to speak spoken/spoken_label/speak_first. This goes beyond what the structured metadata conveys.

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 dense but disciplined: it opens with the core purpose, then the return contract, then usage triggers, then speech/field mapping. Some internal jargon ('N5', 'Quest Work rail', 'ship-seat') creates load, but every sentence carries functional information.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of explaining return values, and it does so in detail: primary next move, needs_you hosts, running host count, work_units, and companyId-gated revenue constraint plus ranked Playbooks. For a read tool with optional parameters and 100% schema coverage, this is nearly complete; only exact response formatting and focus_area integration are left implicit.

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%, so the schema already documents all three parameters, including companyId's alias, omission behavior, and focus_area enum. The description restates companyId's effect but adds no new meaning beyond the schema, and it doesn't mention focus_area at all. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 names a specific resource ('Quest Log strip') and a concrete delivery mode ('Speech-safe ... for voice CoS'), then enumerates the returned content: primary next move, needs_you hosts, running host count, work_units, and companyId-gated revenue constraint/Playbooks. It also distinguishes itself from other quest/attention tools by stating 'Prefer this when ... instead of inventing SPA state.'

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 explicit trigger phrases for when to use the tool: 'what's next', 'what should I work on', 'what's in Quest Log', 'what needs me', 'where is PR N', or after open. It does not name a sibling tool to use as an alternative when those conditions don't apply, so it stops short of full when/when-not coverage.

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