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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds useful behavioral detail beyond annotations: compact output under 4 KB by default, full=true for full plan tables, and how constraints are matched against whenNotTopPick.

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 a single dense sentence with the key output components front-loaded and the compact-versus-full behavior in parentheses. It is efficient and appropriately sized, though the jargon makes it slightly less readable than it could be.

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?

With no output schema, the description does useful work by listing return components and the compact/full size tradeoff. It still leaves gaps around when to choose this tool versus alternatives and what a 'Depot Pick' decision card fundamentally represents, so it is adequate but incomplete.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema: it clarifies that jtbd identifies one JTBD, that full switches from compact output to full plan tables, and that constraints are matched against whenNotTopPick. The schema documents the fields, while the description explains their behavior in the decision-card context.

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 names the artifacts returned — Depot Pick, runners-up, whenNotTopPick skip rule, and cite string — and scopes them to one JTBD, so the agent can infer this is a decision-card tool. However, it uses a noun phrase rather than a clear verb and leans on domain jargon ('Depot Pick', 'whenNotTopPick'), so it does not crisply distinguish the tool from siblings like compare or quote.

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 gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no named alternatives. The only implied usage is that it operates on one JTBD, and the constraints note explains matching behavior rather than selection context.

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