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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering safety and side effects. The description adds important behavioral context beyond annotations: it emphasizes that results are verbatim engine output, instructing the agent not to fabricate or round. This disclosure is valuable for proper tool use.

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 two sentences plus a short emphasized instruction. It efficiently states the tool's purpose, output contents, and a critical usage note. Every sentence contributes value, with no redundant or vague phrasing.

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 an output schema and rich annotations, the description covers purpose, output details, and a key behavioral instruction. It is mostly complete but lacks explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over siblings. Nonetheless, it provides sufficient context for correct invocation.

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% with both parameters having descriptive enums. The description does not add new meaning beyond the schema; it mentions 'DC count' and the return format but does not elaborate on parameter values or constraints. Given high schema coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool retrieves a precomputed result for a specific DC count in a greenfield demo. It specifies the returned data (sited DCs with lat/lon, city/state, assignments, score), distinguishing it from sibling tools like describe_greenfield_demo or get_opt_result.

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 includes an anti-fabrication instruction for handling results, which guides usage. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. The context of sibling tools provides some differentiation, but clear exclusions are missing.

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