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

Annotations only declare the safety profile (destructive, open-world, non-idempotent, read-write); the description goes well beyond that by disclosing the authentication requirement, mandatory role/membership/approval prerequisites, per-category OAuth scopes, and a preview-before-approval workflow. It does not explain the consequences of the destructive operations or the approve/execute lifecycle in detail, so 5 is not warranted.

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 opening sentence is front-loaded and the permission mapping is compact, but sentences like 'Configuration, test proof, activation, collection and outcomes stay distinct' are cryptic and consume space without conveying actionable meaning. The paragraph is dense jargon rather than efficiently structured guidance.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and annotations cover the safety profile. However, for a polymorphic command dispatcher with three undocumented action variants, the description omits the single most important thing: what each command actually does. Auth and permission context is complete; operation semantics are not.

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 parameter meaning, and it largely does not. The three command variants (acknowledge, measure, complete_exercise) and their fields (incidentId, businessId, exercise, note, minutes, amountCents) are never described in prose; only the idempotencyKey gets any coverage via the reuse instruction. The agent is left to reverse-engineer the union schema.

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 frames the tool as managing agency support through an authenticated service, and hints at domains (configuration, activation, collection) and permission categories (enrollment/installations, simulations, care). But it never states the actual operations the dispatcher performs, and it does not clearly separate itself from sibling tools like agency_care or agency_enrollments, which its permission sentence indirectly references.

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 concrete procedural guidance: inspect the command schema first, review exact previews before approval, and reuse the same idempotency key. It also maps action categories to required scopes (agents:write, evals:write, sms:write) and states that roles, client memberships and owner approvals are mandatory prerequisites. It stops short of explicitly routing between sibling tools.

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