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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the one thing annotations can't: a cost of $0.25 USDC per call, which is genuinely actionable. Beyond that it discloses nothing about the evaluation criteria, failure behavior, or what happens with an ill-formed input.

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?

Several fragments stacked with stray punctuation ("well-formed?."), a mid-sentence usage directive, a dangling field-list fragment, and a bare price tag at the end. Nothing is front-loaded as a clean statement of what the tool does; the reader must reassemble the meaning.

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?

It is a read-only evaluation with an output schema, so return values needn't be described, and the price is disclosed. What's missing is the substance an agent needs to call it confidently: what shape the nested `delegation` object should take and what 'well-formed' means in this system.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the only parameter-ish detail added — "an object with 18 fields including checkable_fraction, delegate_id" — is misleading: `checkable_fraction` appears nowhere in the input schema, and `delegate_id` is a top-level param, not a field of the delegation object. The note adds confusion rather than meaning over the schema.

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 question phrasing "Was this task delegation well-formed?" implies an evaluation of a delegation, and the title confirms the resource. But it never states what a 'delegation instrument' is or what criteria are checked, and the trailing "an object with 18 fields including checkable_fraction, delegate_id" is grammatically detached and doesn't map to the 3 input params, leaving the purpose partly opaque.

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 explicitly routes away from `assess_agent_deadlock` ("use it rather than ... for delegation instrument, not agent deadlock"), which is real use guidance. However, the far closer siblings `evaluate_task_delegation_safety` and `verify_agent_delegation` are never mentioned, so an agent choosing between delegation-related tools still has to guess.

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