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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description adds useful behavior beyond them: the status filter (open or regressed), the ordering (newest status change first), and the inclusion of register health counts including the 90-day verification share. It does not describe freshness/refresh cadence beyond 'continuously verified' or whether results are capped.

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?

One dense sentence with a colon that front-loads the question being answered and then enumerates the returned contents; nothing is redundant. The marketing-tinged 'continuously verified Friction Index' phrasing is the only slightly padded element.

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?

With no output schema, the description must carry the return-shape burden and largely does: record selection, ordering, and aggregate health counts are all stated. Minor gaps remain around refresh cadence and whether 'all records' can be truncated.

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?

There is a single locale parameter with 100% schema description coverage, including its enum, default, and English-fallback behavior. The description adds nothing about locale, so the schema carries the full burden and the baseline of 3 applies.

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 names a specific resource and scope: records in Microsoft Copilot Studio with status open or regressed from the Friction Index, plus register health counts. That is concrete enough to distinguish it from a plain record fetch like get_friction_record, though the verb is implied rather than stated and no sibling is named.

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 the framing ('what is currently broken or regressed') and by the status filter, so an agent can infer this is the status-page/snapshot tool rather than a lookup. However, there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance and no pointer to an alternative such as list_frictions when the agent wants more than a snapshot.

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