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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower; the description still adds real value by defining the scope of 'nonallocating' — no target/provider probing, no Tool allocation, no capacity reservation, no evaluator-availability guarantee. It also flags the auth requirement ('Authenticated'). It stops short of error modes or failure behavior.

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, zero filler, and the affirmative definition of the operation is front-loaded ahead of the negative disclaimers. Every clause carries distinct information.

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?

For a complex nested-schema tool with no output schema, the description usefully summarizes the return payload (bindings, expanded counts, bounds, admission) and draws clear behavioral boundaries. The main gap is parameter-level detail, which is assessed separately; nothing else an agent needs to decide to call it is missing.

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 there are three required params (projectId, environmentId, and a deeply nested recipe object), so the description carries the full burden. It says only 'explicit recipe/scope', which gestures at the recipe param but gives no meaning for projectId/environmentId and nothing about the recipe's nested structure. It does not 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('nonallocating preview of an explicit recipe/scope') and enumerates exactly what the preview surfaces (declared bindings, expanded counts, service bounds, advisory admission). It does not name a sibling (e.g. firedrill_validate_recipe or firedrill_materialize), so the agent must infer the boundary from the negative clauses rather than an explicit contrast.

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 only implied: 'preview' plus the negative list ('does not probe... allocate... reserve') tells the agent this is the safe pre-flight step before a materialize/run, but no sibling is named and there is no explicit when/when-not or prerequisite statement. The routing signal exists but is left for the agent to infer.

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