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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing a provenance/trust model — `computed` vs `sourced` vs `drafted` — and two behavioural directives (cite the confidence you rely on; never present a `drafted` block as settled). These are exactly the kind of usage constraints annotations cannot express. The one gap is that readOnlyHint=false is never reconciled with what reads as a pure retrieval tool, so an agent cannot tell whether calling it has side effects.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with the purpose before the block inventory, and every sentence carries information: contents, confidence semantics, and the drafting caveat. The block enumeration is long but each item is load-bearing rather than filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the full burden and does so by describing the return shape block-by-block plus the confidence field. Remaining gaps are minor: block values packet, profile, regimes, contacts and carrier are never explained, and side-effect behaviour is unaddressed.

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 enum values are already listed in the schema, so baseline is 3. The description adds real meaning to most values — 'calendar' means only ADOPTED dates, 'passport' means per-product scaffolds showing missing fields, 'identifiers' is an audit, 'gs1' is a route — usefully expanding seven of the twelve enum members.

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?

States a specific verb and resource with clear scope: "Return everything the Aeroz agent has built for this organisation," then enumerates seven concrete content blocks (calendar, passport scaffold, identifier audit, GS1 route, coverage, integration, audit scope). An agent can tell this is the aggregate/organisation-level view rather than a single-purpose checker, though no sibling tool is named explicitly.

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?

"Use this to answer almost any question about what this business needs to do" gives a clear, actionable when-to-use rule that routes the agent here over the narrower sibling checks. It does not state when NOT to use it (e.g. for a single shipment or unit lookup) nor name alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.

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