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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint), the description discloses that results can be empty when feature_gate_evaluator has not run cycles yet, and explains the lifecycle semantics. This adds valuable behavioral context about state transitions and reliance on underlying system execution.

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?

The description is well-structured with clear sections (Purpose, Triggers, When to call, Prerequisites, Next steps, Caveats, Args, Disclaimer). It is slightly verbose, especially the trigger list, but every section earns its place and the purpose is front-loaded.

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 read-only query with an output schema and strong annotations, the description is thorough: it covers purpose, usage context, parameter semantics, and a key edge case (empty result). It provides all necessary information for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 schema has zero parameter descriptions, but the Args section explains all three parameters: market_id defaults to coin, target_market is a backward-compatible alias, and status_filter accepts enumerated lifecycle states. This compensates well for the schema gap, though 'defaults to coin' could be more explicit about the default value.

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 clearly states the tool returns the current lifecycle state of external features under 3-track statistical validation, with a concrete state model. It provides specific trigger questions and distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on lifecycle states, making the tool's purpose 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?

The description provides explicit 'When to call' guidance (meta-level trust audit) and lists trigger phrases, but it does not directly contrast with the similarly named sibling get_feature_governance_status_tool. It gives clear context for when to use this tool, but no explicit alternatives or exclusions.

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