Suggest Reallocation

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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent/non-destructive safety, and the description adds rich behavioral context beyond them: the TWO return tiers (tier_1_same_region vs tier_2_cross_region), the drift_is_systemic decision rule with its tactical implication (prefer cross_region vs tactical_ok), the DC Hub reduction note, and API-key scoping. This lets the agent act on results, not just parse them.

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 description is longer than average but front-loads the drift trigger and packs every sentence with function: tiers, systemic flag, scope limitation, next step. The middle section is slightly run-on, but there is no 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?

For a two-parameter tool with an output schema, safety annotations, and a decision rule, this is complete: trigger, output shape, interpretation guidance, scope constraints, and how to widen the pool are all covered. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly or act on its results is missing.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3; both parameters are already well-documented in the schema, including the default for drifted_site_ref (lowest-scoring site). The description reinforces that shortlist_name is scoped to the current shortlist and frames drifted_site_ref as the DRIFTED slot, but adds little syntax-level meaning 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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'get replacement candidates from the rest of that shortlist' when a saved site DRIFTS. It distinguishes itself from siblings by naming its trigger (get_shortlist refresh or set_shortlist_alert firing) and its scope ('THIS shortlist only'), so an agent can tell it apart from tools like find_alternatives or rank_sites.

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 trigger condition is explicit and vivid: use it when a saved site's national standing dropped, surfaced by get_shortlist refresh or a set_shortlist_alert firing, so 'the alert becomes an action' (Phase 5). It references save_to_shortlist for widening the pool, but does not explicitly name exclusions or contrast alternatives like find_alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.

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