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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds a meaningful safety constraint ('Never send private customer records'), which is useful context. However, it does not disclose other behavioral traits such as side effects, read-only status, or what happens after routing, leaving significant gaps.

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 concise and front-loaded, with the core purpose stated first and the safety directive second. Both sentences earn their place, though 'smallest current BuildFlow capability' is somewhat vague and could be clearer.

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?

The tool has five undocumented optional parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and two sibling tools, yet the description only provides a one-line purpose and a safety warning. It does not explain how to use the parameters, what the tool returns, or how it relates to discover_capabilities and prepare_handoff, making it incomplete for reliable 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 description coverage is 0%, and the description provides no explanation of the five parameters (goal, intent, problem, data_shape, constraints). The phrase 'enterprise-operations problem' only loosely maps to the schema and does not clarify the role of each parameter. The description fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema-level documentation.

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 states a specific action ('Match an enterprise-operations problem to the smallest current BuildFlow capability'), which clearly identifies the tool's core purpose. It does not explicitly name sibling tools, but the focus on routing to a capability distinguishes it from discover_capabilities and prepare_handoff at a basic level.

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 implies use when an enterprise-operations problem needs to be matched to a BuildFlow capability, but it provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It also does not mention alternatives or explain how this tool differs from its siblings, leaving the agent to infer selection criteria.

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