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

With no annotations and no output schema, the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Freeze state' implies a mutation with unclear reversibility, authorization requirements, or side effects, and 'mint disposition receipt' is unexplained; none of these mechanics are disclosed.

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?

It is short, but the single cryptic fragment is not front-loaded with an intelligible purpose. Brevity here reflects under-specification rather than tight structure.

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?

A mutation-style tool with no annotations, no output schema, 0% parameter coverage, and undefined domain vocabulary leaves the agent without enough information to invoke it safely or correctly.

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 description coverage is 0% for two parameters (run_id required, incident_id optional), and the description never mentions either. It provides no meaning for run_id or when incident_id should be supplied.

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 gestures at actions ('freeze state, mint disposition receipt') but 'expectant protocol' and 'BLACK run' are undefined jargon, so an agent cannot confidently state what the tool does. It also does not distinguish this from siblings like retriage_run or score_run.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus retriage_run, score_run, declare_incident, or allocation_order, and no condition explaining what a 'BLACK run' or 'expectant' state means. Nothing tells the agent when this tool is appropriate or inappropriate.

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