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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows it is non-destructive. The description adds value by confirming it is 'Guidance only' and enumerating specific actions it does not perform (read files, fetch rates, schedule, book), which gives more context than the bare annotations.

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 with no filler. The main action and outputs are front-loaded, followed by the scope limitation and usage trigger. Every sentence earns its place, making it highly efficient.

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?

For a single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the purpose, the outputs (CSV headers, starter prompt), the exact use cases, and the limitations. It does not detail the exact format of the CSV headers or prompt, but that is minor and not required for correct 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?

The sole parameter 'workflow' has an enum with three values, and the description names the corresponding use cases ('shipment quoting, weekly freight comparison, or invoice review'), mapping directly to the enum options. This adds meaning beyond the raw schema, which has 0% description coverage, so the description compensates adequately.

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 verb+resource: it provides CSV headers and a starter prompt for three distinct workflows. It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly saying it is 'Guidance only' and does not read files, fetch rates, schedule work, or book, making its scope unambiguous.

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 trigger condition: 'Use this when an operator asks how to start or supplies invoices/a shipment sheet.' It also lists exclusions (does not read files, fetch rates, etc.), which clarifies what it is not for, effectively routing the agent away from action-oriented tools.

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