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

The description provides critical behavioral context not found in the schema or annotations: the 'max 20' limit, the default 'warm transfer' type, and the mandatory 'Get explicit approval before calling' step, all of which are key operational behaviors.

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 highly efficient. It front-loads the core purpose and immediate functional constraints (max 20, label format) before adding behavioral nuances.

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?

Given the complex nature of the input schema, the description provides the necessary external context (limits, approval flow, default behavior) that helps an agent understand the scope and required process, making it very complete.

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?

Although schema coverage is low (57%), the description adds vital semantic constraints on key parameters, specifically dictating that 'label' must be a single lowercase word and explaining the 'description' field's role in the transfer decision-making process.

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 action (Add transfer number) and the target resource (receptionist). While it doesn't list all siblings, the 'Add' prefix clearly distinguishes it from list, delete, or update operations in the context of the sibling list.

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 provides strong contextual usage constraints, such as the maximum capacity (max 20) and specific formatting rules for the 'label'. It implies usage through the constraints rather than explicitly detailing when *not* to use it compared to siblings.

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