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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one useful behavioral fact beyond them: omitting the stage returns all stages. It says nothing about the shape or size of the grouped result, but an output schema exists to carry that.

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, front-loaded with what is returned and followed by the scoping rule; nothing is padding. The inline enum listing mildly duplicates the schema's enum values, though it aids scanning.

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 optional enum parameter with a declared output schema, the definition covers purpose, scoping, and default behavior. The only real gap is routing relative to sibling discovery tools such as get_overview or search_samplyn.

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 100% and the enum is fully enumerated, so the schema already carries most semantics. The description still adds value the schema does not: that the parameter is optional and that omission means "all" rather than an error or empty result.

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?

"What Samplyn does, grouped by the stage of apparel wholesale work" states the resource (capabilities) and its organizing structure, so an agent knows it gets a stage-grouped capability inventory rather than a search result. It stops short of differentiating itself from siblings like get_overview, which likely overlaps in subject matter.

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 second sentence explains how to scope the call (one stage, or none for all), which is genuine usage guidance for the filter. However, it never says when to pick this tool over get_overview or search_samplyn, so the alternative-selection question is left to inference.

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