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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. 'Track' does not disclose that the tool modifies phase status (phase_status) or advances a phase (update_phase). It fails to mention side effects, permissions, or return behavior, making the tool's operational nature unclear.

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 concise and front-loaded, with no unnecessary words. However, it is under-specified: a single vague sentence that states the topic but not the tool's actual function, so it lacks the substance needed for a usable definition.

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 absence of annotations, no output schema, and a low schema description coverage, the description is far from complete. It doesn't explain what the tool does with the parameters, what a successful call returns, or what side effects occur, leaving critical gaps for agent 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?

The description adds no meaning to the three parameters (exercise_id, phase_status, update_phase). Schema description coverage is only 33% (only update_phase has a description), so the description needed to compensate but didn't, leaving agents without guidance on how to populate required fields like exercise_id.

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 states a general purpose ('Track TIBER-EU 8-phase lifecycle') with a verb and resource, but 'track' is ambiguous—it could mean view or update. The schema reveals update capabilities (phase_status, update_phase), yet the description doesn't convey this. It also provides no differentiation from sibling tools like test_calendar or obligation_map.

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. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or specific scenarios (e.g., 'use when updating phase status'), leaving the agent without context for selection.

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