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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by detailing what the output contains (log of moves, scrap events with reasons, and impacted requisitions). It does not contradict annotations and provides enough insight into the tool's behavior.

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 dense but efficient. The first sentence packs the core purpose and output, and the second sentence gives usage guidance. It is slightly long but every clause adds value, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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 tool with no output schema, the description clearly explains what the return includes (chronological log, scrap reasons, impacted requisitions). It also explains how to obtain the input, the scope, and alternatives. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly without further research.

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 only parameter, requisitionId, has a schema description that already explains it and how to find it. The tool description repeats that hint without adding new meaning. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline is 3, and the description does not elevate it further.

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's function: it returns a chronological log of batch moves and scrap events for a single requisition, including scrap reasons and other impacted requisitions. It explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings like query and aggregate by scoping to one requisition.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool versus alternatives: for single-requisition history, and explicitly says to use query/aggregate for shop-floor-level scrap analysis, and warns not to loop this tool over requisitions. This is unambiguous and prevents misuse.

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