who_owns

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states 'Returns found=false with suggestions rather than guessing at a near match,' which is a valuable behavioral trait that helps the agent set expectations. It also implies a read-only lookup (no side effects mentioned), though it does not elaborate on authentication or error conditions. Overall, it adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the schema.

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?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose. Every clause adds value: the first sentence defines the outcome; the second clarifies input flexibility and the non-guessing behavior. No redundancy or filler.

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 (one parameter, no output schema), and the description covers purpose, input semantics, and a key behavior (found=false with suggestions). It does not list the exact fields returned (e.g., team name, contact info), but 'how to reach them' implies that. Given the low complexity and lack of annotations, it is reasonably complete, though a bit more detail on the return payload would make it excellent.

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 schema already describes the parameter as 'Service name or alias' with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds nuance by specifying 'the name someone would actually type during an incident,' which gives the agent guidance on the flexibility of input. This extra context—emphasizing natural incident-time phrasing—goes slightly beyond the schema's dry definition, justifying a 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 the tool's purpose: 'Which team owns a service and how to reach them right now.' This specifies a verb (owns), a resource (service), and the output (ownership and contact). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (escalation_path, playbook, impact_clock) implicitly by focusing on ownership rather than escalation steps, runbooks, or timing.

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 usage context—when you need to identify who owns a service—but it does not explicitly contrast with siblings or state when not to use this tool. There is no mention of alternatives like escalation_path or playbook. The behavior note about returning found=false provides some guidance, but it is not a clear when-to-use vs. when-not-to-use directive.

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