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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, lowering the bar. The description adds a useful behavioral boundary: the tool only selects a workflow category, not a regulatory outcome. It does not disclose how it handles a null 'question_type' or what categories exist.

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 sentence, front-loaded, with no filler; the 'without making a regulatory determination' qualifier earns its place. It is efficiently written even though it is semantically thin.

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?

Despite an output schema and safety annotations, the description leaves real gaps: no parameter semantics and no explanation of what 'workflow category' means or how the tool should be invoked. It is likely callable with no arguments, but the definition does not confirm that or clarify the expected interaction.

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 coverage is 0%: 'question_type' has only a title and no description or enum. The tool description never mentions this parameter, so the agent has no idea what values are valid or how the parameter affects the category choice.

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 clear action ('Choose') and resource ('CQC workflow category'), plus an important boundary ('without making a regulatory determination'). It does not explicitly contrast sibling tools, so an agent must infer that this is the category-routing tool rather than cqc_preflight_input_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 wording implies the tool is for selecting a CQC workflow category, and the 'without making a regulatory determination' clause sets an expectation boundary. However, there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or comparison to alternatives like cqc_preflight_input_guide.

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