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

The description discloses important behavioral traits beyond annotations: 'The runtime authorizes the operation from lifecycle state and evidence, rejects station skipping, and never treats a request as verified completion' and 'Creator code and credentials remain creator-owned.' This adds context about authorization, non-verification, and ownership, complementing the annotations without contradiction.

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, front-loaded with the purpose, and contains no superfluous text. Every sentence adds value, making it concise and well-structured.

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 complexity (5 parameters, no output schema), the description covers authorization, rejection, non-verification, and ownership. It lacks details on success/failure responses or side effects, but the main behavioral aspects are addressed, making it fairly complete.

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 only 40%, and the tool description does not explain individual parameter meanings (e.g., lifecycle_id, lifecycle_key, action enum values). While it vaguely references lifecycle state, it fails to compensate for the low coverage, leaving agents unclear on parameter specifics.

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 'Request one operation at one canonical Factory station,' specifying a verb (Request), resource (operation at Factory station), and scope (one station, one operation). It also mentions authorization and rejection of skipping, making the purpose unambiguous and distinguishable from siblings.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool (e.g., runtime authorization from lifecycle state and evidence, rejects station skipping). However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use or compare to sibling tools, but the behavioral details are sufficient for typical use.

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