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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, any side effects, authentication needs, or output format. The only behavior implied is returning current open drift events, but this lacks enough detail for safe autonomous invocation.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence efficiently conveys the core purpose without any filler. Every word contributes to meaning.

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 simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description adequately informs the agent of the return nature (current open events). However, it could be more complete by explicitly noting that this is a read-only status check and perhaps contrasting with drift_history, but the minimalism is acceptable for the complexity level.

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 description coverage is 100%; the parameter description 'Optional — empty for all' already clarifies that omitting entity_id returns all entities. The tool description adds the context 'per entity', which reinforces the filter intent but does not introduce new semantics beyond the schema.

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 'Current open drift events per entity' clearly states a specific resource (open drift events) and scope (per entity), distinguishing it from siblings like drift_history (historical) and full_drift_scan (scanning). The verb is implied but the intent is unmistakable.

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?

Usage context is implied by the term 'current open drift events'—it's for checking present status rather than scanning or history—but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over drift_history or detect_* tools. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.

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