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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses what is returned (new engagement awaiting its brief, next step, files for outcomes/<id>/, METHOD.md with brief frame, research protocol, composition and run rules) and the cost/effect of include_example ('it is large', off by default). 'No work runs here' reinforces the read-only framing; a minor tension remains with 'Returns a new engagement' since scaffolding files is arguably a state change, but the disclosure is otherwise unusually rich.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the entry condition, then the return payload and the example option. Every clause carries operational information and nothing is repeated from the title alone.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be spelled out, yet the description still summarizes them, which is helpful for a multi-artifact tool. The remaining gap is the unglossed started/engagement_id parameters and no note on whether repeated calls are safe, which matters given idempotentHint=true.

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 only 25%, so the description needs to carry weight; it does add meaning for include_example (what the worked example contains and that it is large) and implicitly defines request as the owner's own words. It says nothing about the started or engagement_id parameters (e.g., whether supplying engagement_id makes a re-run deterministic), leaving half the surface undocumented in both places.

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 gives a specific verb+resource: it opens a new engagement from an owner-stated goal and returns the scaffold, next step, and files under outcomes/<id>/. 'The front door for any goal or problem' plus 'No work runs here' implicitly separates it from advance_outcome and the prepare_* siblings, though none are named explicitly.

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 clearly states the entry condition ('any goal or problem the owner states, in their own words') and rules out execution ('No work runs here'), which points the agent toward a later step. It does not name concrete alternatives such as advance_outcome or prepare_outcome_pattern, so the routing is implied rather than explicit.

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