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

The description extensively discloses behavioral traits: it resolves capabilities, searches observations, live-checks, selects routes, can execute read-only public call, returns handoff for auth/missing args/mutation, never marks plan as completed, and has restrictions on payments, credentials, private-network access, and writes. This adds significant context beyond annotations.

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 dense and packs information into 4-5 sentences, but lacks clear structure (e.g., bullet points). It is not overly verbose but could be more organized for easier parsing.

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 covers many behavioral aspects and constraints, but lacks details on return format, error handling, and interaction with sibling tools. Given the tool's complexity and the absence of an output schema, more completeness is expected.

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 coverage is 57% (4 of 7 params have descriptions). The tool description does not explain parameters like limit, constraints, or environment beyond what is in the schema. For parameters without schema descriptions, no additional meaning is provided, and for those with descriptions, the tool description adds little.

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 it is the PRIMARY entry point for the SaSame system and lists its capabilities (resolves capabilities, searches observations, live-checks, selects routes, can execute read-only calls). This distinguishes it from sibling tools which are more specific, but the description could be more concise.

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 implies this is the primary entry point and mentions it returns handoffs for authentication, missing arguments, or mutation. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus the many specific sibling tools, nor does it provide clear 'when not to use' guidance.

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