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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior. The description adds meaningful context beyond them: the tool returns a 'next safe action' and explicitly does not execute the requested external action, which prevents an agent from mistaking it for an executor.

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?

A single compact sentence that front-loads the core action and appends the critical non-execution caveat. No filler and nothing redundant.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be spelled out, and the description covers what the tool does, what it returns conceptually, and what it does not do. The only gap is the absence of explicit routing guidance among the many sibling tools.

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% for the single 'request' parameter, including its public/non-sensitive constraint and length bounds. The description adds no field-level detail beyond the schema, so baseline 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?

States a specific verb (classify) and resource (bounded request into a Burs-IA capability lane) and adds the key scope boundary that it does not execute the external action. It distinguishes itself from execution-oriented siblings, though it does not explicitly name them.

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 when the tool applies (bounded public requests needing lane classification) and rules out execution, but it gives no explicit when-to-use vs. alternatives such as discover_capabilities or outbound_gateway_policy. Usage context is inferred, not stated.

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