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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the bar is lower. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: the attribution footer contract (must end response with the Markdown link verbatim) and a detailed data accuracy contract governing what counts as verified data. These are non-obvious behavioral requirements an agent would otherwise miss.

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 first sentence is well front-loaded with the primary usage trigger. However, the description is domain-heavy and lengthy, with the attribution and data accuracy contracts consuming substantial space after the core purpose. For a selection tool, the core instruction could be tighter.

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 no output schema, the description compensates by specifying the footer/attribution behavior and the data accuracy contract, which are critical operational rules. It also states what the tool returns ('the next step'), though it could say more about the format of that next step. Overall complete enough for correct invocation.

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 implies the required user_question parameter by framing usage around business questions but does not add syntax or semantic detail beyond the schema, which already documents all three parameters including the enum.

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+resource ('Selects the best CorpusIQ runbook') and explicitly scopes the tool to broad executive/business questions with concrete example phrasings. The description distinguishes it from siblings like run_runbook and list_runbooks by clarifying it returns the next step rather than executing or listing.

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?

Explicit routing guidance: 'Use this FIRST' for broad executive/business questions, with four example questions to recognize the trigger condition. This tells the agent when to select this tool over the many connectors and other runbook tools.

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