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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so the safety bar is partly covered; the description adds genuine context beyond that by explaining the execution path differs by agent type and that the response always contains the agent's full instructions and skills. The idempotency sentence largely restates idempotentHint=true, but it specifies the observable effect (same run returned rather than a new one).

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then agent-type routing, then response content, then retry semantics. Little waste, though the idempotency sentence partly duplicates the annotation and could have been spent on parameter guidance instead.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value detail is not required, and the description correctly summarizes that instructions and skills are returned. For a tool with a nested free-form payload and zero parameter documentation, though, the description leaves the caller guessing about the shape of "input" and the effect of "include_context", which is the main completeness gap.

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 0% for four parameters, including a free-form nested "input" object, an "idempotency_key" with a 128-char cap, and an "include_context" boolean. The description only hints at idempotency behavior and never explains what "input" should contain, what "include_context" changes, or the format of agent_id, so the documentation gap is largely unfilled.

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?

"Run one of your deployed Dactic agents" gives a specific verb and resource, and the follow-up sentence splits behavior by agent type (Claude = Managed Agent session, Monday = board automation), which is material detail an agent cannot get from the schema. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the nearby siblings load_agent, get_agent, or deploy_agent, so the differentiation is implicit rather than stated.

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?

Usage is implied by "deployed" agents, and the description says retrying the same request returns the same run, which tells the caller how to safely retry. However, it never states when to invoke_agent versus load_agent or get_agent, nor any precondition such as the agent being deployed or permissions required.

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