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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the return structure in detail (13-step ordered checklist, ok|missing|pending|blocked statuses, fixer role, exact API/on-chain call, evidence), which is genuinely useful. But it never states whether the tool is read-only or side-effect free, nor any auth/permission needs, leaving the safety profile unstated.

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 opening sentence is a long, run-on construction packed with parentheticals and undefined pipeline jargon ('pool_eligible', 'graded', 'calibrated'). It is dense rather than front-loaded, forcing the reader to parse a 13-step chain to extract the core purpose.

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 4-parameter, no-output-schema, no-annotation tool, the description does describe the return shape well. But it omits tenant semantics and does not size the response or clarify what 'summary' changes about the returned shape, leaving gaps an agent would want before calling it.

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 50%, so the description must compensate. It explains the summary flag's behavior and implies agent_id via 'one agent', while agent_id/chain_id are already documented in the schema. The 'tenant' enum (moonbeam | taifoon) is left unexplained in both schema and description.

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 makes clear this is a readiness/diagnostic computation over a single agent, and explicitly contrasts the single-agent mode with the summary funnel over every harvested agent. It lacks a clean leading verb, but the resource ('agent readiness') and scope are discernible despite the jargon-dense phrasing.

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 one concrete usage instruction ('Pass summary:true for the funnel over every harvested agent'), which is real guidance. However, it never states when to use this versus overlapping siblings like taifoon_hire_lifecycle, taifoon_hiring_stages or taifoon_onboarding_flows, and names no exclusions.

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