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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent/destructive annotations, the description discloses the governed T0 rail, the specific output components (findings, plan, next actions, citations, human action card, opaque receipt), and a detailed list of non-actions (no outreach, no CRM/inventory writes, no authority changes, no assessment, no credential grants). This is rich contextual behavior that is not derivable from the annotations.

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 three sentences: purpose first, then machinery/outputs, then exclusions. No fluff, but it is dense with jargon ('governed T0 public judgment rail', 'opaque receipt') that may require unpacking. Still, every sentence 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?

Annotations cover safety and idempotency, and an output schema exists so return values need not be enumerated. The description covers scope, behavior, and non-actions, but lacks explicit usage guidance versus alternatives and leaves several option parameters (mode, role_context, fixture_id) undocmented. For a 9-param workflow selector, this is a meaningful gap.

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 low (33%, only situation, tenant_id, opportunity_ref have descriptions). The description adds meaning only for the workflow enum by restating its values in prose, but leaves mode (including synthetic_acceptance), role_context, fixture_id, schema_version, and idempotency_key unexplained. It does not compensate effectively for the low schema coverage.

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 and resource: 'returns a ... coaching brief' for six explicitly enumerated workflows. The scope is clearly bounded by 'public-safe, tenant-scoped', distinguishing it from siblings like dealership_check_lead_follow_up or estimator tools.

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 provides clear context by enumerating the exact coaching scenarios (opportunity leak diagnosis, ownership/next actions, daily manager reconciliation, etc.), which tells the agent when this tool applies. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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