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

Annotations already establish this is a read-only, closed-world computation, so no credit is due there. The description omits the actual decision rules (e.g., failures >= threshold implies open; cooldown elapsed implies half-open), which is the behavior an agent most needs for a pure-logic tool.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is lean to the point of under-specification, but nothing in the text 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?

There is no output schema and no meaningful annotation context beyond read-only, and all three parameters are undocumented, so the description should supply the decision mapping and return shape. It conveys the tri-state output but leaves the rule logic and edge cases unstated.

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 0%, so the description must carry all parameter meaning. It hints at 'failures' and 'elapsed cooldown', but never explains 'threshold', whether failures is a count or rate, or what cooldown_elapsed=true changes in the outcome.

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?

Specific verb ("Recommend") plus the exact decision space (open, half-open, closed) and the inputs driving it. An agent knows this is a state-recommendation tool, though it isn't contrasted with the similarly named privi_pro_circuit_threshold.

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?

No statement of when to call this versus the threshold or backoff siblings, and no preconditions (e.g., whether failures must be a rolling count). Usage is only inferable from the phrase 'recent failures and elapsed cooldown'.

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