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

With no annotations, the description adds useful behavioral context: criteria are frozen on a specific date, and the gate tests operational competence, not alpha. This provides a clear purpose and boundaries beyond a generic status check.

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, well-structured sentence that packs essential information: what the gate is, criteria frozen date, what it reports, and a key interpretation note. No filler or redundancy.

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?

For a status tool with no output schema, the description explains the nature and scope of the gate. It could be more precise about the output fields, but it sufficiently informs an agent of the tool's purpose and constraints.

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?

There are zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4; the description does not need to add parameter info, and it doesn't, but the context of the tool is well conveyed.

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 provides status for a pre-registered go-live gate, specifying frozen criteria, current progress, and interpretation. It uniquely identifies the resource, distinguishing it from siblings like fleet_overview or kill_list.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, but the context implies it is the go-to for gate status. The lack of sibling overlap reduces the need for exclusions.

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