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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/non-open-world, so the safety bar is met. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond them: 'Recomputes from validated inputs; no shared state,' which tells the agent the workbench is stateless and derives output from the passed inputs rather than mutating anything.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, followed by the required workflow and the state-behavior note. No filler; every sentence carries 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?

The prerequisites and statelessness are covered, and annotations carry the safety profile with no output schema to explain. However, it never states what 'showing' the workbench actually returns (a UI artifact, a URL, a payload), which is a meaningful gap for a UI-opening tool with a nested-object parameter.

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%, so the description must carry parameter meaning, and it does: 'input' is the value returned by a data tool and 'tool' is the matching tool name. This explains the role of both required params. It stops short of detailing the enum constraint or the shape of the nested input object.

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 and resource ('Show the editable useSignal UI') and implicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling data tools, which it references as the prerequisite step. It is clear what the tool produces at a high level, though 'workbench' is left somewhat abstract.

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 gives an explicit ordered workflow: 'First call a useSignal data tool, then pass its returned input and matching tool name.' This tells the agent exactly when this tool applies (after obtaining results from a sibling). No explicit when-not or named alternative, so not a 5.

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