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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses meaningful behavioral nuances: it reports creates/updates/unchanged tickets, preserves human-edited generated fields, surfaces identity conflicts, explains permission requirements, warns that tickets are not field-encrypted and may expose source-derived snippets after commit, and warns about scale for statement-derived runs. This is rich, non-obvious behavior that an agent needs to invoke and act on the results safely.

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 every sentence earns its place: purpose, permissions, privacy risk, scale warning, and owner-confirmation guidance. The main purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and no content is redundant with the schema or annotations. The density is justified by the tool's operational complexity.

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 single-parameter, no-output-schema preview tool with meaningful side-risk behavior, the description covers the full operational context: what it reports, permissions required, privacy/security caveats, and when to escalate before committing. An agent has enough information to select, invoke, and interpret this tool correctly in context.

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 input schema only defines run_id as a required UUID with 0% description coverage, so the description must carry meaning. It does: run_id refers to 'one completed owned Accounting run's WRITEOff work plan,' and it explains run-dependent behavior like statement-derived runs planning one ticket per unclassified line. It does not explicitly name run_id, but the referent and constraints are clear.

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 opens with a precise verb and resource: 'Preview, without writing, how one completed owned Accounting run's WRITEOff work plan would map to stable Meta Council tickets.' It also enumerates the report contents (creates, updates, unchanged tickets, preserved fields, identity conflicts), making the tool's purpose unmistakable. The strong contrast with the committing sibling sync_accounting_tickets is evident from 'without writing' and 'before committing'.

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 explicitly directs the agent to use this tool before committing a sync: 'Preview before committing because tickets are not field-encrypted...' It also gives a concrete decision rule: check item count and 'report it and confirm with the owner rather than committing a board-flooding sync.' While it doesn't name the sync sibling explicitly, the when/when-not guidance is unambiguous and actionable.

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