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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds useful behavioral context by explicitly mentioning two distinct result types (coordinated vs related), which maps to the relationship_type parameter and is not apparent from annotations 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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no superfluous words. Every word contributes to the core meaning.

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 read-only lookup tool with well-described schema parameters, the one-sentence description is adequate. However, it could benefit from a brief note clarifying the difference between 'coordinated' and 'related' to prevent ambiguity, though the parameter description for relationship_type partially compensates.

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% with descriptions for all four parameters, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no parameter-specific detail beyond what the schema already provides.

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 uses a specific verb ('look up') with a clear resource ('coordinated Nice classes or related Nice classes') and scope ('for a given class number'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_nice_classes (which likely lists all classes) and recommend_nice_classes (which recommends classes).

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_nice_classes or recommend_nice_classes. It only states the function, not the context or exclusions.

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