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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds the citation requirement (cite job quotes with specific format), which is a behavioral trait not in annotations. It doesn't mention output format or pagination, but for a read tool with annotations, this is adequate.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the tool's purpose and actions. The citation requirement is placed at the end. No wasted words, but could be slightly more concise by merging the action requirements.

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?

For a read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers all necessary information to select and invoke correctly: actions, required parameters, and citation format. It lacks explicit mention of return format, but annotations cover safety, and this is not a complex tool.

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 80%, with most parameters having descriptions. The description adds value by explaining the relationship between actions and required parameters, and clarifies that project_id is an alias for folder_id. It also clarifies the citation format requirement, which is not in 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 description clearly states the tool reads JTBD job graph segments and trees, naming two specific actions and their required parameters. It distinguishes from siblings like jtbd_edit by the read-only nature, but doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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 specifies when to use each action (list_segments needs folder_id/project_id, get_tree needs segment_id or interview_id). It doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use this tool versus alternatives, but the action-specific guidance is clear.

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