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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds what they cannot: a FACTORY_FLOOR subscription is required, scrap reasons are included in the output, impacted requisitions from the same build step are surfaced, and the anti-loop warning signals a per-requisition cost. That is substantive context beyond structured fields.

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?

Front-loaded with the core capability, then the id-lookup, then the exclusions, then the prerequisite. Dense but every sentence carries operational meaning; nothing is filler.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description still tells the agent what the response contains (chronological moves, scrap events with reasons, co-impacted requisitions) and what access is needed. Nothing required to call it correctly is missing.

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 100% and the sole parameter already documents the query(entity="requisition") lookup. The description repeats that hint but adds no format or edge-case detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb+resource+scope: a chronological production log for ONE requisition's parts, including batch moves, scrap events with reasons, and co-impacted requisitions. The single-requisition scoping is stated explicitly, which cleanly separates it from query and aggregate on the same entity.

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?

Gives the prerequisite lookup (query(entity="requisition") for the id), names the alternatives for shop-floor scrap aggregation (query/aggregate on scrap with the dimensions they cover), and explicitly forbids looping this tool over requisitions. When-to-use and when-not-to-use are both spelled out.

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