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

Annotations already declare a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent mutation, so the description's job is to add beyond that — and it does: it discloses the side effect that a touch is logged, and that terminal/ghosted states remain on the books rather than being removed. It stops short of saying whether invalid transitions are rejected or whether the note is required for particular statuses.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, followed by a compact side-effect line; every sentence carries information. The parenthetical ticket reference (JH-9) is minor noise but not costly.

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 3-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers side effects and status retention, but omits what the caller gets back and whether status transitions are validated or free-form. Adequate, with clear remaining gaps an agent would hit in practice.

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 coverage is 67%, and the description only enriches the status parameter by clarifying the ghosted value's semantics. The note parameter ('What actually happened') and the remaining enum values, plus any transition rules, get no explanation beyond the schema, so the description adds marginal value over structured fields.

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 first sentence gives a specific verb and resource: 'Move an application along the pipeline,' which an agent can act on immediately. It does not, however, distinguish itself from plausible siblings such as hunt_correct_application or hunt_log_interaction, leaving the agent to infer which one moves status.

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?

Usage is only implied by 'Move an application along the pipeline'; there is no explicit when-to-use versus when to call hunt_correct_application or hunt_log_interaction. The 'ghosted is a status, not a deletion' note is useful domain guidance but governs a status value, not tool selection.

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