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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds substantial context beyond that: it requires operation_id to be exact and from find_operations for the authenticated user, mandates schema inspection via get_operation_inputs, warns that input shapes cannot be guessed, explains the file_id exchange mechanism and automatic type conversion, and describes the return format. It does not contradict annotations.

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 long but front-loads purpose and usage, then organizes remaining details under clear headings (Reporting tips, Files). Each section earns its place by addressing a distinct operational concern for a complex generic dispatch tool. No filler or redundant restatement.

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?

Given an output schema exists, the description needn't explain return values, yet it still notes that JSON is returned. It covers prerequisites, alternatives, file handling, reporting-specific guidance, and authentication context. For a nested-object, two-parameter dispatch tool with rich annotations, the description is fully adequate.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful constraints: operation_id must be an exact Markifact operation ID returned by find_operations for the authenticated user (with examples), and input_data must contain only fields from the get_operation_inputs schema for the same operation_id. This goes beyond the schema and helps prevent malformed calls.

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 (Execute) and resource (read-only Markifact operation), gives concrete examples of operation types, and explicitly contrasts with run_write_operation. An agent can immediately tell what this tool does and how it differs from its write sibling.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use (direct response to current request) and when-not-to-use (startup checks, background context gathering), names the alternative run_write_operation for write actions, and states a hard prerequisite that operations with requires_approval:true must go through run_write_operation. It also mandates inspecting the schema via get_operation_inputs before calling. Nothing 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.