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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile needs no restatement. The description adds a genuinely useful behavioral hint beyond annotations—that the response includes a 'next action'—but says nothing about whether status is live vs cached or how frequently it should be polled.

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?

One short sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity means it leaves sibling-routing information entirely absent.

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 is simple: one fully documented required parameter, rich annotations, and an output schema that already explains the return values, so the description needn't cover returns. What is missing is the context that matters most for selection—how this differs from get_formation_events and list_formations.

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%: the single formation_id parameter is documented with its op_fm_* format and its provenance (returned by create_formation or list_formations). The description adds no meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 pairs a specific verb ('Get') with a specific resource ('status and next action of a formation'), so the agent knows exactly what it retrieves. It does not, however, distinguish this snapshot view from the sibling offshoreproz_get_formation_events, which an agent could easily confuse it with.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives. The agent must infer from the name alone that this is the polling/snapshot tool rather than the event-history (get_formation_events) or listing (list_formations) tool.

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