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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the description's extra value is real: it discloses pagination via nextCursor and a non-obvious domain caveat that 'notification sent means provider acceptance, not delivery'. Missing is any note on authorization failure behavior or result ordering.

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?

Three short sentences, zero filler, with the core action front-loaded and the caveat placed where a reader will see it. Every clause carries information the agent could act on.

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, so the description is the only source of return-shape information, and it never says what a capacity request record looks like or what status values appear. Pagination and the acceptance-vs-delivery nuance are covered, but the record payload and terminal-condition detection ('when does nextCursor stop?') are left implicit.

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 the burden, and it only partially does: 'Follow nextCursor' explains the cursor's role and the project/environment constraint explains the two required IDs. The limit parameter (default 25, max 100) is never mentioned, leaving a quarter of the surface undocumented.

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 ('Read') plus resource ('saved capacity requests') plus scope ('one authorized project/environment'). The closing clause 'Does not change capacity or run simulations' implicitly separates it from the mutating sibling firedrill_request_capacity, though that sibling is never named.

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?

Usage is implied by 'Read saved capacity requests in one authorized project/environment' and the negative 'Does not change capacity or run simulations' tells the agent this is not a write path. However, no alternative is named for the write case (e.g. firedrill_request_capacity), so the agent must infer the routing itself.

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