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

Annotations declare this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-open-world write, and the description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: the note goes to the telo team rather than the user's workspace, and the agent must not promise the feature will be built. It does not address duplicate submissions (idempotentHint=false implies repeat calls create separate reports), which would have been the final piece of behavioral context.

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 trigger condition, then the payload instructions, then the user-facing follow-up, with the exclusion as a final guard clause. No sentence is redundant and the ordering matches the order in which an agent needs the information.

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?

The tool is simple (four flat parameters, output schema present so return values need no explanation), and the description covers trigger conditions, content guidance for all three required fields, and the required user communication. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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 100%, so the baseline would be 3, but the description adds real meaning by instructing that `request` be captured "in their words" and that `tried` and `missing` be supplied — clarifying the intended content and fidelity of each field rather than just naming them. It stops short of explaining how to choose between the `area` enum values, though the schema's own enum descriptions handle that.

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 opens with a specific trigger ("Call when the user asked for something telo cannot do with the tools here") and enumerates the concrete gap categories — home chart/layout, missing metric, missing data, unanswerable question — which map cleanly onto the `area` enum. It is unmistakably a gap-reporting tool and cannot be confused with arrange_home, list_metrics, or the query tools.

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 states exactly when to call, gives four illustrative trigger cases, and closes with an explicit exclusion: "Not for questions you can answer by reading their data." It even prescribes the follow-up message to the user, so the agent knows both the entry condition and the post-call behavior.

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