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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations, the description discloses that user_intent is analytics-only and does not affect results, that team_domain/facility_key default to the saved project, and that the tool will signal missing current project. These trait disclosures add valuable behavioral context not captured in 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 well-structured with clear sections (overview, workflow, args, returns). Every sentence serves a purpose—explaining behavior, usage, or parameters—and avoids redundancy. The formatting improves readability despite the length.

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?

The description covers the tool's purpose, argument semantics, default behavior, interaction with sibling tools, and return type. Given the existing output schema and annotations, the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly without missing critical context.

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?

The description thoroughly explains each parameter: team_domain and facility_key are optional overrides, user_intent is passed verbatim but only for analytics. However, it calls user_intent 'REQUIRED' while the schema shows a default and does not list it as required, creating a potential contradiction that could mislead an agent.

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 (Analyze), the specific resource (Work In Place progress from SiteInsights), and the outputs (completion rates, delays, forecasts, progress report). It distinguishes itself from siblings like ask-about-project-data by emphasizing analytical report generation rather than general project Q&A.

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 workflow section provides explicit when-to-use guidance: default to no arguments relying on the saved project, explicitly avoid calling list-my-projects unless the project is missing, and only pass overrides when analyzing a different project. It names sibling tools and exact steps for recovery, which is excellent guidance.

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