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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is already covered. The description adds context about the purpose of resourceConstraints (scheduling around shared equipment), which is useful. However, it does not disclose what happens if resourceConstraints is omitted, whether the tool validates constraints, or how the result is returned. With annotations covering the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the core purpose and includes a concrete example ('one oven, two centrifuges, one stage'). It is efficient and readable, though the example could be seen as slightly verbose. No wasted words overall.

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?

The tool has 5 parameters, 3 required, no output schema, and low schema coverage. The description explains the central concept (resourceConstraints) and its purpose, but does not cover the other required parameters (name, type) or the optional ones. An agent would need to open the schema to understand what 'type' values are valid and what 'name' means. The description is adequate for the core use case but incomplete for full parameter understanding.

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 only 20%, so the description must compensate. The description explains the meaning of resourceConstraints (equipment limits) and its role in scheduling, which adds value beyond the schema's bare 'array' type. However, it does not explain the 'name', 'type', 'actors', or 'description' parameters, and the schema itself only documents 'actors'. The description partially compensates but leaves gaps.

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 a specific verb ('Describe'), a resource ('a workspace's equipment limits'), and the output form ('as resourceConstraints to copy into a program'). It clearly conveys the tool's purpose. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like calibrate_program or validate_program, though the resourceConstraints focus provides some implicit differentiation.

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 implies usage context: it is for defining equipment limits so that steps sharing equipment are scheduled around each other. This gives a clear 'why' but no explicit 'when to use vs alternatives' or exclusions. The sibling list includes many program-related tools, but the description does not name any alternative or condition for choosing this one.

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