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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable context beyond these by stating 'No private records are fetched and no activity is invented,' which addresses data privacy and the deterministic nature of the output. This is consistent with the annotations and provides additional behavioral guarantees.

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 two sentences, highly concise, and front-loaded with the core purpose. The behavioral notes ('No private records are fetched and no activity is invented') are valuable additions without redundancy. Every sentence earns its place.

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 tool has an output schema (true), the description does not need to explain return values. It covers the purpose, behavioral guarantees, and implies the input structure. It does not explicitly mention that all three parameters are required, but the schema already marks them as required, so this is not a significant gap. The description is adequate for an agent to understand what the tool does and its key constraints.

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 100%, with each parameter (as_of, services, queues) having a description in the schema. The tool description itself does not add any parameter-specific semantics, so the baseline score of 3 applies. It does not elaborate on formats or constraints beyond what the schema already provides.

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 states a specific verb ('Summarize'), a clear resource ('supplied service health and queue observations'), and a defined outcome ('into deterministic priorities'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'prepare_work_order' and 'get_service_catalog' by focusing on summarization and prioritization rather than retrieval or action.

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?

The description implies its use when one has service health and queue observations and needs priorities, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or conditions. The guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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