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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only states the classification result. It does not mention whether the tool reads existing incident data, whether it requires all inputs, what it returns beyond the label, or whether it has side effects. The reference to '4h/72h/1m reporting' hints at consequences of classification but not at tool 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 two sentences with no fluff. It leads with the action verb 'Classify', specifies the regulatory framework, and defines the output categories. Every word earns its place.

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?

Given the tool has 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It explains the high-level purpose but does not cover input expectations, return values, or how thresholds are applied. For a relatively complex tool, this is insufficient for reliable invocation.

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 57%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters (incident_id, duration_hours, economic_impact_eur). It does not. The description references DORA criteria but fails to map any input fields to specific criteria or explain how the tool uses them. This leaves the agent guessing about critical inputs.

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 'classify an incident against the 6 DORA criteria' and identifies the binary outcome (MAJOR vs NON-MAJOR). It names a specific regulation, making the purpose concrete. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'major_incident_check', which likely serves a similar purpose, so it misses the full 5.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus its alternatives. The description implies classification for DORA compliance but does not state prerequisites, exclusions, or when a different tool like 'major_incident_check' might be more appropriate.

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