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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable context about data sources, output types, and the async behavior to avoid timeouts. No contradiction with annotations.

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 four sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then data sources, output types, and usage context. Every sentence adds distinct information with no redundancy or filler.

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 tool with an output schema and rich annotations, the description is sufficiently complete. It covers the purpose, audience, data sources, input types, output categories, and async usage. No critical gaps for agent selection and invocation.

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 each parameter already has a description. The description adds some guidance about using site identifiers or geographic regions and the async parameter, but it does not fundamentally extend the schema meaning. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool generates manufacturing waste heatmaps for COOs using specific data sources (EPA TRI and FAOSTAT). This specific verb+resource pair distinguishes it from siblings like manufacturing_esg_compliance_mapper and procurement_six_sigma_waste_hunter.

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 provides clear use-case context ('Ideal for sustainability strategy and operational efficiency improvements') and identifies the target audience (COOs). It does not explicitly mention when not to use or name alternative tools, so it misses full exclusion/alternative guidance.

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