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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose meaningful behavior: the $0.005 Base USDC cost and the fact that 'no followup is purchased or executed automatically,' clarifying it has no side effects beyond the report. It stops short of stating whether payment/auth is required or how the report is structured.

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 sentences are front-loaded with cost then purpose, with no filler. Dense terms like 'retry trap' and 'smallest next state change' are slightly opaque but arguably the intended vocabulary of the domain.

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?

Because no output schema exists, the description helpfully enumerates the returned artifacts (blocker, retry trap, next state change, continuation route), which is needed. However, it omits any guidance on the two required parameters, leaving a real gap for a tool that cannot be invoked without them.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for 'goal' and 'run_log' but never mentions either. 'failed-run triage' weakly implies run_log, and nothing describes the goal parameter, leaving both inputs effectively undocumented across schema and description.

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 gives a specific verb+resource: 'failed-run triage' that produces a blocker, retry trap, next state change, and optional continuation route. It implies a distinction from a heavier variant via 'cheap first-pass,' but never names rescue_workflow_pro or recover_workflow, so sibling differentiation is left to inference.

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 establishes the usage context ('cheap first-pass,' 'when more help is warranted') which implies escalation to a heavier tool, but it never names the alternative or states explicit when-not-to-use conditions. Usage is implied rather than spelled out.

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