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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint). It discloses that the tool returns the playbook/skill_body by default, explains the server_side pilot behavior, and outlines a detailed data accuracy contract that governs how the agent should treat returned data. No contradictions with annotations; the readOnlyHint aligns with the description's emphasis on returning data rather than mutating.

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 well-structured: it starts with the core action, then explains default vs. alternative execution, followed by critical behavioral instructions. The data accuracy contract is lengthy but necessary for correct agent behavior. Every sentence serves a purpose, though the length could be slightly reduced without losing clarity. Front-loaded with the main action.

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 6 parameters, no output schema, and complex annotations, the description covers the main operation, execution modes, and data handling thoroughly. It explains the return type (playbook/skill_body) and the server_side pilot. The data accuracy contract compensates for the openWorldHint. However, it could be more explicit about error handling beyond 'fail closed' and the exact format of the returned playbook. Still, it is largely complete for the agent to use 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?

Input schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds value for execution_mode (explaining the two modes) and runbook_id (noting its source from list_runbooks/select_runbook). However, it does not elaborate on mode, arguments, date_range, or user_question beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate; the description provides marginal additional 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 'Run a specific CorpusIQ runbook by id', which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes from siblings like list_runbooks (which lists) and select_runbook (which selects) by indicating execution. The mention of default playbook return and server_side alternative further clarifies the tool's purpose.

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 provides clear context on when to use each execution_mode ('playbook' for client-executed response, 'server_side' for the bounded executive-snapshot pilot) and warns that unsupported runbooks fail closed. It also includes important behavioral instructions (ending response with 'Powered by CorpusIQ', data accuracy contract). However, it does not explicitly compare this tool to alternatives like invoke_skill or state when not to use it.

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