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

Annotations only declare read-only/non-destructive; the description adds the critical fail-closed semantics ('or the check fails, do not act') and the reason behind the switch. That fail-closed rule is a behavioral trait an agent could not derive from the schema or 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 gating instruction is front-loaded, followed by the return contract and the fail-closed rule. Every clause carries actionable information with no padding.

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?

Absent an output schema, the description states the return shape ('live true or false') and how to interpret it. For a single-param gating tool, nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 0% for the single required 'id' param, so the description must compensate. It does so by naming the expected format ('id JG-XXXX-XXXX'), which meaningfully constrains the parameter beyond the bare 'string' type.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('check' the 'Jugular' kill switch) and specifies the return value ('Returns live true or false'). The named system concept and the sibling sebbi_jugular_create make it trivially distinguishable from other sebbi_* tools.

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?

Explicitly prescribes timing ('Call before taking any action'), the condition for acting, and the fallback ('If live is false, or the check fails, do not act'). Both the positive and negative branches are covered with no inference required.

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