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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a key behavior: 'Always returns candidates; caller picks', which tells the agent that the tool returns multiple options and the caller must choose. However, it does not describe the structure of the candidates, error handling, or edge cases like empty results, leaving gaps.

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 extremely concise, with two sentences that pack the core purpose, accepted inputs, and output behavior. Every word adds value, and the key behavioral note ('Always returns candidates; caller picks') is front-loaded. No redundancy or fluff.

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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what it does, what input it expects, and that it returns a list of candidates. It could clarify the output structure or failure modes, but given the low complexity, it is reasonably complete for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain the parameter. It does state that the query can be a partial ID, display_id, slug, or dysfunction name, giving meaning to the 'query' field beyond the schema's generic string constraints. However, it lacks specifics on formatting, case sensitivity, or examples, so it only partially compensates.

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 verb 'canonicalise' and the resource: partial IDs, display_ids, slugs, or dysfunction names. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like get_dysfunction or list_dysfunctions by focusing on resolution rather than retrieval or listing, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 intended use is implied: use this when you have a partial identifier that needs canonicalization. It does not state when not to use it, nor does it mention alternative tools for full IDs or other resolution scenarios. The guidance is inferable but not explicit.

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