faf_orchestrate_recommendation

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

Adds real behavioral context beyond the annotations: it writes a recommendation receipt on every call (explaining why readOnlyHint=false is correct for a tool that is otherwise 'read-only WRT substrate state'), and it is explicitly advisory and non-destructive. It does not disclose latency, cost, or failure modes.

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?

Front-loads the core purpose and the advisory constraint, and every clause carries information. It is dense with domain jargon ('substrate', 'take-a-hint'), which slightly reduces scannability but does not waste sentences.

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 complex, no-parameter orchestrator with no output schema, the description adequately conveys both the inputs (implicitly the current substrate state) and the shape of the returned recommendation. Return-value detail is generic rather than schema-precise, but the description covers what an agent needs to decide to call it.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a 0-param tool applies. The description correctly implies no caller inputs are needed, only current substrate state.

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 and resource ('returns a structured recommendation about drift') and enumerates the payload (which refresh, why, severity, signals). It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling refresh_* tools, which actually perform refreshes, since this only recommends.

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?

Establishes clear context: it is the 'heavy orchestrator' that composes drift detection, contradiction check, repeat-offender, take-a-hint and refresh history, and it is ADVISORY ONLY and never auto-fires. It does not, however, explicitly route the agent against alternatives like faf_get_orchestration_policy or refresh_faf.

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