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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether the analysis is read-only, what side effects might occur, or what the output format is. The minimal text provides no insight into runtime behavior beyond the name.

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 a single concise sentence with no redundant words. It is appropriately short for a tool with no parameters, though it lacks detail that might be considered necessary for effective use.

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?

The description is extremely sparse for a tool that performs a specific analysis. It does not explain what 'completeness' means, what inputs or outputs to expect, or how it integrates with the sibling tools. Given the lack of output schema and annotations, the description leaves significant gaps for the agent.

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?

The input schema is empty with zero parameters, so there is nothing to document. The baseline for no parameters is 4, and the description adds no conflicting or misleading information about parameters.

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 performs a 'BCM plan completeness analysis' across all systems, indicating a specific analytical action on a defined resource. It is distinct from siblings like 'crisis_plan_check' and 'recovery_status' by focusing on completeness, though it does not explicitly contrast with them.

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?

The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. It only states what it does, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage context.

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