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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered by structured fields and the bar for the description is lower. The description reinforces scope (Rush SR only, not buying advice) but does not add behavioral detail like return format or how procedures are matched.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the use case, then exclusions. Every clause earns its place and no filler is present.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values need not be described. For a single-param read-only tool, the description covers trigger, scope, and exclusions completely enough for correct 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?

Schema description coverage is 0% for the single 'task' parameter, so the description must carry meaning. The example ('how do I bleed the brakes on my Rush SR') effectively demonstrates the expected natural-language task format, compensating for the undocumented parameter. It doesn't state the 200-char limit or explicit phrasing rules, so not a 5.

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 ('look up a Rush SR procedure') with a concrete example ('how do I bleed the brakes on my Rush SR'). Explicitly scopes to the Rush SR and routes the agent away from siblings with 'Do not use for a symptom diagnosis or a service interval lookup'.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use ('when you need steps for a task') and two explicit when-not-to-use rules that map directly onto the sibling tools diagnose_symptom and maintenance_schedule. Also excludes other vehicles and buying advice.

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