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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no extra behavioral context such as pagination, rate limits, or response format. It is consistent with annotations but adds nothing beyond them.

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, efficient sentence that conveys the core purpose without fluff. It is front-loaded and every word earns its place, making it highly concise.

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?

The tool has 4 parameters and no output schema, so the description carries more burden. It fails to explain the semantic difference between 'coordinated' and 'related' classes, which is critical for choosing the right relationship_type. It also does not clarify what the response looks like or what happens when optional parameters are omitted. This is a significant gap for an agent to call the tool correctly.

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 all four parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds minimal value by mentioning 'coordinated' and 'related' which map to the relationship_type enum, but it does not elaborate on limit, include_legacy, or defaults. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the meaning.

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 states a clear verb ('Look up') and a specific resource (coordinated/related Nice classes for a given class number). It distinguishes between two types of relationships but does not explicitly contrast it with sibling tools like get_nice_classes or recommend_nice_classes, so it misses the explicit differentiation that would earn a 5.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of when to prefer this over get_nice_classes or recommend_nice_classes, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The agent is left to infer usage context from the name alone.

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