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

No annotations are provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses operator-only access but does not cover other behavioral traits like read-only nature, rate limits, response behavior when no signals exist, or required permissions beyond operator role.

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?

Description is a single sentence plus a fragment, front-loaded with the primary action. Every word serves a purpose (listing, purpose of retirement, access restriction). No unnecessary information.

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?

Given no output schema, description should clarify return format beyond 'with their ids' (e.g., additional fields, pagination). Missing definitions of 'roadmap signal' and 'active (signed, grounding)'. Also lacks guidance on authentication or operator_key acquisition, which are critical for usage.

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 has one required parameter 'operator_key' with 0% description coverage. Description adds 'Operator-only' as context but does not explain what operator_key is, its format, where to acquire it, or any constraints. This provides minimal semantic value beyond the schema.

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?

Description clearly states the tool lists active (signed, grounding) roadmap signals with their IDs, and explicitly links to the use case of finding a signal_id to retire. This distinguishes it from siblings like list_signal_candidates and retire_signal.

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?

Description directs use to finding a signal_id for retirement and restricts usage to 'Operator-only', providing clear context. It implicitly indicates when to use (before retire_signal) but does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives.

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