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

Discloses the fail-closed exclusivity gate and the risk of breaching a processing agreement, which complements the openWorldHint and readOnly=false annotations. No contradiction; the model substitution and cost are also stated.

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?

Two compact sentences carry identity, differentiation, and usage policy; the schema pointer and pricing are included without padding. Every clause earns its place.

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?

Covers selection criteria, safety policy, and points to the full input contract. It relies on the sibling tool's contract for output details, but with no output schema and a well-scoped parameter schema, an agent has enough 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?

input_schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the description only needs to point there, which it does. Repeating 'fail-closed exclusivity gate' ties to the exclusivity parameter but adds no new schema details.

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?

Description frames it as the higher-tier variant of pos-rescue with the same contract and exclusivity gate, and singles out the sibling it supersedes. The 'rescue' action is not spelled out with a verb, but the use-case language (resisted one fix, spans two systems) makes the purpose evident.

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?

Explicitly states when to choose this tier (after one failed fix, two-system spans, or processing-agreement risk) and instructs to use pos-rescue for first diagnosis. This is textbook when-vs-alternative guidance.

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