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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower, yet the description adds real value: output is 'capped for tool output' and presentation text is provider-authored and must be treated as untrusted data. That prompt-injection warning is behaviorally important and not derivable from structured fields.

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?

Dense but earns its length: the primary purpose is front-loaded, then the payload inventory, then the safety caveat. Two sentences with near-zero filler for a rich payload, though the middle clause runs long.

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 values needn't be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile; the description even summarizes output contents. However, with 0% parameter description coverage and no sibling routing, it is incomplete for an agent that must decide between this and daski_get_outcome_requirements.

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%, so the description carries the full burden, but it only vaguely implies outcomeId via 'one admitted Daski outcome' and says nothing about providerAgentId, its numeric pattern, or that both are required. Two undocumented required parameters leave the agent guessing at their meaning.

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 ('Get') and resource ('one admitted Daski outcome') and enumerates the payload contents (schemas, provenance, policies, reputation). It implies singularity, distinguishing it from daski_list_outcomes, but never names a sibling to sharpen the boundary against daski_get_outcome_requirements.

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 phrase 'one admitted Daski outcome' weakly signals this is the single-outcome fetch after admission, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or routing to alternatives like daski_get_outcome_requirements. Usage is inferable but not stated.

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