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

Annotations already declare readOnly, non-destructive and closed-world, and the description adds real value on top: truncation behavior ('truncated is true and truncated_note says so') and the origin of the data (deterministic derivation from an object-centric event log built from dated export rows). It stops short of describing ordering or payload shape for the list case, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and the mode branch before any detail. The single long semicolon-chained sentence packs a lot in and the derivation sentence is secondary but still earns its place by explaining what 'discovered' means.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so: case count, happy-path share, step count, median hours between steps, and deviating variants with missing/extra steps. Truncation is covered, so an agent knows exactly what it will get back.

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% and the schema already explains omitting object_type, but the description goes further by spelling out what each mode returns, which is the meaningful consequence of the parameter. It reinforces rather than merely repeats the 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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource ('Read one process in full, or list every process') and makes the dual-mode nature explicit. An agent immediately knows this returns process structures rather than raw objects or metrics, distinguishing it from get_object, get_map_overview and get_metric.

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?

States the exact selection rule ('Without object_type it lists them...; with object_type it reads that one') and explicitly routes away from a named sibling: 'Use this, not fetch, when your client can call it.' That is both a when-to-use and a when-to-use-something-else statement.

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