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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that it is read-onlyhare and returns up to 500 dead endpoints, which is useful context about output limits and the type of data, but it doesn't mention pagination or error handling, which could be relevant given the 500 cap.

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 concise, with three sentences, and front-loads the core purpose. The usage guidance and read-only note are placed efficiently without redundancy. Every sentence serves a purpose: what it does, what it returns, and when to use it.

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?

Given the tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description provides essential information: the purpose, the output limit, and the usage order relative to siblings. It doesn't specify the exact format of the output (e.g., list of names) but that may be inferred. It is fairly complete for a simple read-only tool, though explicit output format would improve it.

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?

There are no parameters in the schema, so the baseline is 4. The description adds context about the output (dead endpoints, names) and the limit of 500, which helps the agent understand what to expect without needing parameters. It doesn't need to explain parameters since none exist.

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 tool shows dead endpoints (alive=false) from the monitored registry, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by specifying it provides the actionable dead list, while others like aw_census or aw_list_monitored likely provide broader views.

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 explicitly says to use this tool after aw_census or aw_list_monitored to get the actionable dead list, providing a clear usage sequence and differentiating it from those siblings. This gives the agent direct guidance on when to invoke this tool versus alternatives.

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