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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows it is a safe read operation. The description adds context about the liveness statuses (live | stale | offline) and the specific attributes returned, which goes beyond the annotation metadata. This is useful because it tells the agent what to expect in terms of the data's nature without needing to call the tool.

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 sentence, efficiently conveying the purpose and the key attributes (kind, capabilities, liveness) and the statuses. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, and there is no unnecessary detail, making it highly concise.

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 tool is simple with no parameters and no output schema, so the description is complete for an agent to understand what it does and what data it returns. It could mention the potential use cases or the significance of liveness states, but given the tool's simplicity, it is adequate.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the description doesn't need to explain parameter semantics. The schema is empty, and the description adequately covers what the tool returns, earning a baseline of 4.

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 lists FLOCORE mesh lanes and specifies what attributes are included (kind, capabilities, liveness). The verb 'List' identifies it as a read operation, and the resource 'FLOCORE mesh lanes' is specific, distinguishing it from sibling tools that deal with tickets, tenants, or onboarding.

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 the tool is used to inspect mesh lanes, but it does not explicitly say when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. Given the sibling tools, the context is clear enough that this is for mesh-related queries, but no explicit guidance is provided.

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