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

readOnlyHint already covers the safety profile, but the description goes well beyond it: it discloses the access restriction (Awning team only) and decodes the domain-specific route values (review, known_owner, auto_branch, rename) that determine how each row must be interpreted. With no output schema, this field-level semantic decoding is the only place an agent can learn what the rows mean.

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 audience restriction, then the payload, then the route legend. The dense middle sentence uses arrows and parentheticals to compress four route definitions without wasted words.

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 domain-specific ops queue with a non-obvious route enum and warnings, the description supplies the interpretation key that no structured field provides, and there is no output schema to defer to. What it omits is modest: nothing about volume, ordering, or pagination of the returned queue.

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% and the single enum parameter is fully documented there, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description only obliquely touches the parameter via 'see status approved' in the auto_branch note, adding no real syntax or default information beyond the 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?

Names a specific resource ('queue of business applications') plus the payload it carries ('owner contacts and warnings'), and separates itself from op_businesses ('for every business whatever its state') and op_decide_application. An agent can route correctly without opening a schema.

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?

Gives an explicit when-to-use ('see what waits for a decision'), names the follow-up tool (op_decide_application), and names the sibling to use for the broader case (op_businesses). It also states the audience restriction ('Only for the Awning team'), which is a genuine eligibility gate rather than a nicety.

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