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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool is a pure-function with no LLM, deterministic (same input → same output), and lists the emitted suggestion structure. This is strong behavioral transparency, though it doesn't cover potential edge-case behavior.

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 front-loaded with the trigger condition, then output shape, purity, and companion tool reference. Every sentence provides necessary information for an agent; no redundant or filler content.

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?

In the absence of an output schema, the description provides a detailed output structure including kind enum, priority, reasoning, draftBrief fields, and measurementGroundingFacts. It also covers when to use it, inputs, and purity, making it comprehensive for a 4-param nested-object tool.

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 already documents all four parameters with descriptive text (runId's purpose, channel enum, metrics synonyms, workspaceId optional). The description only adds a high-level note about reading 'metrics + the original launch's brief', so it doesn't meaningfully expand beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb+resource ('Next Move Engine') and explicitly states it reads metrics and the launch brief to emit a deterministic suggestion. It distinguishes from the sibling chieflab_create_next_move_action by noting the pairing for turning suggestions into approval-gated drafts.

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 includes a clear 'USE WHEN' condition: measurement just came in, either automatically via chieflab_post_launch_review at 24h or manual call. It also explicitly says to pair with chieflab_create_next_move_action, giving an alternative/next step.

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