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

The annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description's marginal contribution is telling the agent what data comes back (region, customer counts, DC counts, score curve), which matters because there is no output schema, but it says nothing about error behavior for an unknown demo_id or the shape of the score curve.

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 sentences with no filler, and the highest-value item, what the tool returns, is front-loaded before the sequencing note. Nothing repeats the title or the schema.

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-parameter, read-only lookup whose annotations and schema are both rich, the description supplies the one thing the structured fields cannot: the content of the response. A note on obtaining a valid demo_id (presumably via list_greenfield_demos) would close the remaining gap.

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 single parameter carries an enum, so the schema fully documents demo_id on its own. The description adds no format, sourcing or validity guidance beyond what the schema already says ("Which greenfield demo"), which is the expected baseline at full coverage.

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 names a specific verb and resource ("Detail on one greenfield demo") and enumerates the content returned: region, customer count, saved DC counts and the score curve. That separates it from get_greenfield_result (which returns the computed result) and from explain_greenfield, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with the near-twin sibling describe_opt_demo.

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 an explicit ordering rule: "Use before get_greenfield_result," which tells the agent where this sits in the workflow. It stops short of stating when not to use it or pointing to list_greenfield_demos as the way to obtain a valid demo_id.

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