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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description still adds real context beyond them: it declares 'Takes no arguments', names the returned fields (backpressure, sseFallback), and explains the platform behavior they encode ('low-priority reads are shed first under load'). It stops short of rate limits or auth details, so not a 5.

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?

Four tight sentences, fully front-loaded with the core read action, then field semantics, then the decision use-case, then sibling routing. No sentence is redundant.

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 zero-argument read tool with an output schema, this is complete: safety is covered by annotations, return fields are named in the schema and glossed in prose, and the sibling comparisons close off misrouting. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description reinforces this with 'Takes no arguments', leaving no ambiguity for the agent about invocation.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Read the platform's load policy and its 10 most recent capacity test reports') with explicit scope (the 10 most recent reports). It also distinguishes itself from look-alike siblings by naming kenwea.jobs.getStatus and kenwea.agent.sendHeartbeat and what each is for.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger ('Use it to decide whether to defer non-urgent calls') and routes to the correct alternatives with their conditions ('For a job you started use kenwea.jobs.getStatus; to report your own liveness use kenwea.agent.sendHeartbeat'). Nothing about when/when-not is left to inference.

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