select_execution_continuation

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower, yet the description still adds real behavior: it enumerates the side effects it does not perform and states failure semantics ('Unknown or expired IDs fail closed'). Missing only auth/rate-limit context, which keeps it below 5.

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 core sentences are dense and front-loaded with the key constraint, but the bracketed 'Capability/tier/API/authority' prefix is operational metadata that does not help the agent decide or invoke and sits ahead of the actual purpose.

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 single-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description compensates well by describing the return payload (next_operation parameters, missing prerequisites) and the fail-closed behavior. The only unaddressed item is provenance of the continuationId.

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 coverage is 0% for the single parameter, so the description must carry the load. It adds meaningful constraints — the ID must be 'server-issued' and unknown/expired IDs fail closed — but never says where the agent obtains a valid continuationId, leaving a real gap.

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?

Specific verb+resource: 'Select a server-issued execution continuation as read-only context', plus a concrete statement of what comes back ('canonical next_operation parameters and missing prerequisites'). It is distinguishable from mutating siblings via the explicit 'grants no execution authority' clause, though it never names an alternative tool.

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?

Usage is only implied by 'as read-only context' and the negative scoping list ('makes no quote, preparation, admission, debit, signing, or submission call'). That list steers the agent away from this tool for actual execution, but no alternative (e.g. prepare_intent, get_execution_authority) is named, so the agent must infer routing.

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