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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), but the description adds real value beyond them: it states availability ('every authenticated connection') and a data-scope guarantee ('contains no organization records'), which tells the agent this is safe to call and returns metadata only. It stops short of describing response shape or whether output is large.

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?

Two short sentences, each doing distinct work: purpose/trigger first, then access and data-scope reassurance. Nothing 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?

Output schema exists, so return values needn't be spelled out, and annotations cover the safety profile. For a single-enum read-only introspection tool, the description supplies purpose, timing, auth scope, and data sensitivity — the only gap is the sites/locations wording.

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 0%, so the description must carry the module parameter. It enumerates the four modules, matching the enum, but uses 'sites' rather than 'locations' and never explains what selecting a module actually returns or how the fields differ per module.

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 ('inspect exact supported input fields') plus the resources covered (sites, policies, SOPs, employees), which lets an agent distinguish it from record-reading tools like get_policy or get_sop. Minor friction: the prose says 'sites' while the enum uses 'locations', so the mapping requires inference.

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?

'before creating or updating records' gives a clear trigger condition, which is genuinely useful usage guidance. It does not name alternatives (e.g. get_app_schema, get_tool_contract, get_company_configuration_schema) that a sibling-heavy server would plausibly require, so the routing is incomplete.

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