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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds real value beyond them: 'No attachment is required', 'guidance, not a completed analysis or local command execution', and the privacy note 'Website links transfer only a workflow ID, never model data.' These disclose behavior an agent could not infer from annotations alone.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose, which is good, but the rest is a single dense run-on listing many covered topics. Most sentences carry real information, yet the enumeration of workflow areas reads as filler against the enum in the schema and would benefit from tighter formatting.

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 explanation is not required. The description covers scope, when to use, input requirements ('No attachment is required'), continuation semantics and data-privacy limits. Complete enough for an agent to call it correctly; only the workflow-to-topic mapping could be tighter.

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 50%: the format enum is documented while the workflow enum is not. The description compensates by enumerating the workflow subject areas (weights, pruning investigation, comparison, BOM verification, metadata/OMOP, activation evidence, runtime, batch/CI, integrations), giving meaning that maps to the enum beyond the schema. This is meaningful added semantics for the undocumented parameter.

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+resource: discover how to answer a model-analysis question across ChatGPT, the deepbom.org workspace and the local CLI. It also explicitly disambiguates from siblings by declaring 'This is guidance, not a completed analysis or local command execution' and pointing to deepbom_query_file for follow-ups. Clear enough to select without opening the schema, though the enumeration of covered topics blurs the core purpose slightly.

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?

Gives explicit usage context ('Use to discover how to answer a model-analysis question') and a routing rule: 'Prefer answering from existing evidence; inspect supported follow-ups with deepbom_query_file before offering web continuation for richer interaction.' It names an alternative and the condition selecting it, but does not state when to prefer this over deepbom_capabilities specifically.

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