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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful context by explicitly prohibiting inference or defaulting of missing provider, activity, location, role, or event facts, which clarifies the tool's knowledge boundary.

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 two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the purpose and then states the critical constraint, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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?

For a read-only guide tool with an output schema and strong annotations, the description covers purpose and behavioral constraints. The main gaps are undocumented parameter semantics and lack of explicit differentiation from cqc_workflow_guide, so it is adequate but not fully complete.

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?

The schema has one optional 'workflow' parameter with no description and 0% schema description coverage. The description does not explain what values 'workflow' accepts, when to provide it, or what it controls, leaving the agent without parameter guidance.

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 the tool's purpose: show bounded fact categories needed before a CQC preflight workflow. It uses a specific verb and resource, and the constraint about not inferring facts adds useful scope. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling cqc_workflow_guide.

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 a clear usage context ('before using a CQC preflight workflow') and gives a firm behavioral rule ('use only user-supplied facts'). It does not compare against alternatives or state when not to use this tool, leaving sibling selection somewhat implicit.

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