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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond them by disclosing the subscription prerequisite and the shape of the result (per-operation quantities in routing order), though it says nothing about behavior when no progress exists or the subscription is missing.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and followed by the prerequisite. Every clause carries information; nothing is padded.

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 read tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description covers purpose, prerequisite, entitlement, and return shape. A note on error behavior for unavailable/missing requisitions would make it complete.

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?

Only one parameter and schema coverage is 100%; the description's 'find a requisition id via query(entity="requisition")' merely restates the schema's own parameter description. No additional meaning (format edge cases, invalid-id behavior) is contributed.

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 resource and what it reports: quantity of a requisition's parts at each production step/operation, in routing order. That is concrete and distinguishable from getProductionHistory only implicitly via 'right now', which is clear enough but not spelled out.

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 for obtaining the required id (query(entity="requisition")) and the entitlement condition (FACTORY_FLOOR subscription). It does not explicitly exclude or route to the sibling getProductionHistory, so the current-vs-historical boundary is left to inference.

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