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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful context beyond them: an expected ~2 minute latency and the recommendation to call only once, which helps an agent set expectations and avoid redundant calls. The chat-agent approval protocol is a useful behavioral disclosure for interactive contexts.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by the latency/call-frequency note and then the agent-specific protocol. The bracketed chat-agent block is somewhat verbose but each part carries actionable instruction, so little is wasted.

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 read-only, open-world research tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what it does, how long it takes, call frequency, and how to handle a waiting user. Return-value detail is not needed since no output schema exists. Only the omission of when-to-use-vs-siblings keeps it from a 5.

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 80%, so the schema already documents query, detail, context, instructions, and end_timestamp. The description only echoes 'query, with optional context and instructions' without adding format or semantic detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Identify key stakeholders for a query') that is clearly distinct from siblings like retrieve_entity or search_events. It does not name or contrast against any sibling explicitly, but the purpose is unambiguous on its own.

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?

Provides operational guidance ('call once') and a conditional workflow for chat vs autonomous agents, which implies usage context. However, it never states when to choose this over alternatives such as retrieve_entity or retrieve_event_developments, leaving sibling selection to inference.

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