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

Annotations already convey read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond those annotations: the scope is limited to validated Siemens migration cases, the tool relies on evidence-backed structured data, and it will not fabricate compatibility when evidence or context is missing.

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 three sentences and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by usage triggers and key limitations. Every sentence contributes meaning, though a minor redundancy exists between that the first sentence and the 'needs a successor' portion of the second.

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 there is no output schema, the description compensates by indicating what kinds of results the agent can expect: a successor, a functional candidate, compatibility constraints, missing context, or an explicit flag that further discovery is required. Combined with the rich annotations and fully documented parameters, an agent has enough context to invoke and interpret the tool 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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters well. The description does not add much parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, though the phrase 'or missing engineering context' loosely aligns with the known_context parameter. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('investigate'), a clear resource ('migration paths for obsolete industrial components'), and the kinds of outputs an agent should expect (successor, functional migration candidate, compatibility constraints, missing-context indication). This makes the tool's purpose unambiguous even without siblings.

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 explicitly says when to use the tool: when an agent has a legacy part number and needs a successor, candidate, compatibility constraints, missing context, or notification that more discovery is needed. It also sets boundary conditions by noting limited Siemens coverage and stating that it does not provide engineering approval.

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