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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it reveals the core side-effect (handoff to human review), names the emitted signal (CPG-451 ESCALATE), and states the return value (ticket ID). It does not mention irreversibility or downstream human-review behavior, but the main behavioral traits are disclosed.

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 tight sentences with no filler. The trigger condition is front-loaded, followed by the emitted code and the return behavior. Every phrase earns its place.

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 5-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description gives enough to invoke correctly: when to use it, what happens, and how to follow up via check_rfq_status. It could add a bit more about what CPG-451 means or post-escalation expectations, but nothing essential is missing for initial use.

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 100%, so the schema documents all five parameters well. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, which matches the baseline of 3.

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?

Uses a specific verb ('Hand to... human review') and names the exact resource (GSC Navigator, CPG-451 ESCALATE). Clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like submit_rfq or check_rfq_status by focusing on deterministic failures that require human intervention.

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?

States the activation condition explicitly: matters that cannot be resolved deterministically. It also points to check_rfq_status for polling the resulting ticket, but does not explicitly say when not to use request_terms or submit_rfq, so it lacks full exclusions.

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