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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, closed-world, non-destructive), so the bar is lower. The description still adds real context: the two-tier detail output, the optional filters, and notably that rendering depends on client capability ('Shows an interactive map where the client supports it'), which the annotations do not convey.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause and the detail-level guidance comes before the filter note. The middle run-on describing 'the coordination layer, the bench and the external renderers that decide whether faster work becomes a better organisation' is padded and slightly promotional, keeping this out of the top band.

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 usefully explains what each detail mode returns (skeleton vs full prose), and all three optional parameters are accounted for. Nothing an agent needs in order to invoke it correctly is missing; only return-shape specifics like size or pagination are unaddressed.

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%, with both enums (phase, detail) already explained in-schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description's 'Optionally filter by function or phase' largely restates the schema rather than adding new syntax or semantics.

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 states exactly what the resource is (24 illustrative AI agents across ten named business functions, each with rollout phase, optimisation target and cross-functional trade-off) and clearly separates this artifact from siblings like get_essay, search_essays or run_skill_matrix. An agent can tell what it will get without opening the schema.

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 a concrete use case ('Use it to reason about someone's own AI rollout') and tells the agent which detail level to pick by default ('summary... is enough for most reasoning'). It stops short of naming an alternative tool or a when-not-to-use condition.

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