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

Annotations already communicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, lowering the burden on the description. The description adds useful context about the decision's purpose, but it does not explain what the tool actually does internally or what the outcome of the decision is.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the purpose and wastes no words. It is appropriately terse for a zero-parameter discovery/decision tool.

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 tool with no inputs, strong annotations, and an output schema, the description is nearly complete. It could be slightly richer by naming the decision criteria or the output, but the output schema likely covers that.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the description is not required to explain parameter meaning. The baseline of 4 applies because nothing is left undocumented.

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 states a specific action ('Decide whether this Agent should use LIGHTS OUT WORKS') and a clear domain ('technical problem solving or capability transfer'). It is more specific than a mere restatement of the title, though it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like join_low.

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 implies a decision-making role but gives no guidance on when to invoke this tool versus siblings such as join_low or agent_gateway_contract. It does not state conditions, exclusions, or alternatives.

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