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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses nothing: no mutation vs read semantics, permissions, side effects, or return behavior. 'Signed origin label carriage' is opaque rather than informative.

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 text is short but not concise in a useful sense - it is an under-specified fragment rather than a front-loaded, information-bearing sentence. Length is not the problem; absence of content is.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a single cryptic line, the description is far too thin for an agent to understand what triage does or returns. The full explanatory burden falls on the description and it is not met.

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?

The schema defines zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to clarify and the baseline of 4 applies. The description adds nothing here, but nothing is required.

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 phrase 'Triage with signed origin label carriage' largely restates the tool name 'triage' and adds only a cryptic, unexplained modifier. It names no clear verb-resource pair and gives no way to distinguish it from siblings like census, drill, verdict, or verify_label.

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 indication of when to use this tool, when not to, or how it relates to any of the sibling tools. An agent has no basis for choosing this over census, drill, verdict, or verify_label.

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