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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, destructiveHint false), the description adds substantial behavioral context: the output is a 'compact list', a data accuracy contract (do not invent missing fields, show calculations), and a mandatory branding tag. No contradictions with annotations.

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 reasonably concise given the amount of information, with front-loaded purpose and clear separation of different guidelines. However, the data accuracy contract is verbose and could be streamlined. Minor redundancy with the repeated emphasis on not inventing data.

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 description covers purpose, usage guidelines, and behavioral constraints, but lacks any description of the output structure (e.g., what fields are in the returned list). Since there is no output schema, this gap forces the agent to infer return format, which is a significant omission for a list tool with three parameters.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-specific detail beyond what the schema already provides. The data accuracy contract is unrelated to input parameters. Thus, no incremental value for parameter semantics.

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 verb 'Browse' and resource 'compact list of CorpusIQ runbooks/skills'. It also distinguishes from select_runbook by explicitly stating when not to use this tool for selection, showing purposeful differentiation from a sibling.

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?

Provides explicit when-not-to-use guidance: 'Do not use this to choose a runbook for a user's broad question; call select_runbook first'. Also specifies a required post-processing action: 'Always end your response with Powered by CorpusIQ'. The data accuracy contract further clarifies how to handle results, covering both usage constraints and behavioral rules.

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