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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world. Beyond that, the description adds meaningful behavior: it is metadata-only, keeps working after content expiry or deletion, and performs no side-effectful actions. It does not describe return shape or pagination, but the added constraints (retention tolerance, no content retrieval) exceed what the annotations supply.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the core action followed by the retention caveat and the negative boundary. No filler sentences. The negative list is dense but useful, not redundant.

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 carries return-value meaning, and it does so reasonably: metadata-only completeness and cleanup/recovery facts. It covers retention longevity and explicit non-behaviors. The only real gap is per-parameter meaning, which is minor for a uniformly scoped-ID read tool.

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% and none of the three required parameters (batchId, projectId, environmentId) are explained. "For one batch in exact selected scope" hints at a batch plus scope triple, but says nothing about ID format, relation between project and environment scope, or what "exact selected scope" means. The description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 uses a specific verb ("Read") on a named resource ("metadata-only evidence completeness and cleanup/recovery facts") scoped to "one batch". It differentiates itself from siblings by explicitly excluding restore, launch, cleanup-claim, and reassess behaviors. The phrasing is jargon-heavy but an agent can distinguish it from adjacent tools like firedrill_reassess or firedrill_artifacts.

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?

It states the key operating condition ("Works while metadata is retained even after recipe/output expiry or deletion") and delineates when NOT to reach for it ("Does not restore content, launch a target, claim successful cleanup or reassess evidence"). These exclusions implicitly route to reassess/launch siblings, though no alternative tool is named directly.

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