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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, so safety needs no restating. The description adds genuinely new behavior: missing inputs become explicit placeholders rather than being invented, which resolves the ambiguity of 8 required params where several arrays carry defaults.

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?

Two sentences, no filler, and the core action plus section list is front-loaded ahead of the placeholder caveat.

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?

An output schema exists, so return structure need not be explained, and the placeholder rule covers the main behavioral unknown. The remaining gap is that nothing says how the caller should shape alert objects or whether step arrays are ordered.

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 compensate; it names alerts, diagnostics, remediation, rollback, escalation, but omits service, owner and dashboards, and introduces 'verification' which is not a parameter. It maps most inputs to output sections but gives no guidance on item format or ordering.

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?

States a specific verb and artifact ('Generate an operational runbook') and enumerates the sections it will contain, so an agent knows exactly what it gets back. It does not name which sibling to prefer (postmortem, failure_rehearsal, dr_strategy), so differentiation is left to the reader.

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?

'from service facts' implies the caller must supply the operational details, and the placeholder behavior hints at how to handle gaps. But there is no explicit when-to-use versus a sibling like postmortem or dr_strategy, and no statement of prerequisites.

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