local_ydb_storage_placement

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 safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds the 'returns ReadStoragePool output and BSC physical placement' detail, which is genuine value about what the output contains, but doesn't expand on edge cases, auth requirements, or failure modes. With strong annotations carrying the burden, a 3 is fair.

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 sentences, zero waste. The purpose sentence is immediately actionable, and the usage-guideline sentence is front-loaded with clear instruction. Every word earns its place.

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 zero-required-parameter, read-only inspection tool with complete schema coverage and strong annotations, the description is essentially complete. It states outputs, usage timing, and scope. The only minor gap is not describing the return structure in more detail, but without an output schema and given the low complexity, what's provided 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so both parameters (profile, configPath) are fully documented in the schema already. The description adds no parameter-specific context beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 applies since the schema does the heavy lifting and the description doesn't contradict or extend it.

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 names a clear verb+resource ('Read-only storage inspection that returns ReadStoragePool output and BSC physical placement'). It distinguishes from sibling tools by stating its specific domain (storage placement inspection), differentiating from add_storage_groups, storage_leftovers, and cleanup_storage.

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?

Explicitly gives when-to-use guidance: 'Use before adding or reducing storage groups to confirm the exact pool shape.' This directly scopes usage and helps avoid selecting this over add_storage_groups or cleanup_storage. The phrasing implies it should NOT be used for mutations, aligning with its read-only nature.

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