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

Goes well beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations: it discloses that records are re-fetched from authorized sources, that model-supplied financial values are rejected, and that hosts without MCP Apps still get full structured/text results. The last point is a genuine capability/degradation disclosure that an agent could not infer from the schema or 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?

Five short sentences, each doing distinct work: trigger, alternative, data-provenance guarantee, conditional parameter requirement, and host fallback. The usage trigger is front-loaded and there is no filler.

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 annotations and an output schema already covering safety and return values, the description fills the remaining gaps an agent needs: when to render vs. summarize, the conditional siteId requirement, and behavior on non-MCP-App hosts. Only the dashboard-sibling distinction is absent, which is a minor omission given the otherwise complete picture.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning, and it does add a real conditional rule not expressible in the schema: bid_comparison requires a location UUID (i.e., siteId). It leaves the other three workflows' relationship to siteId unstated and does not explicitly bind each view phrase to its enum value, so some inference remains.

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 action (render an interactive view) and enumerates the four view domains: budget, opening-risk, contractor-bid, pending-action, which map onto the workflow enum. It distinguishes itself from the summary tools, but not from the close sibling render_retailhardhat_dashboard, so the agent cannot fully resolve which render tool to pick from the description alone.

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?

Explicit positive trigger ("Use this when the user wants an interactive ... view") plus an explicit exclusion ("Prefer the matching summary tool for analysis without UI"), which correctly routes to summarize_budget_overruns / summarize_pending_actions / identify_opening_blockers / compare_site_bids. The gap is that render_retailhardhat_dashboard is never mentioned, leaving the most confusable alternative unresolved.

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