suggest_reallocation

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, which the description aligns with by stating the tool 'returns' candidates without modification. The description adds significant behavioral context: the two-tier output, drift_is_systemic analysis, and scoping to the API key, going beyond what annotations provide.

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 a single paragraph of about 150 words, which is verbose but well-structured. It front-loads the purpose but includes many details. It could be more concise without losing clarity, but it remains readable.

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?

Given the lack of output schema, the description adequately outlines what the tool returns (two tiers, drift analysis). It explains the logic and constraints (scoped to shortlist, API key). Some details about response format are omitted, but the behavioral description is thorough enough for an AI agent to understand the tool's role.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining shortlist_name as created via save_to_shortlist and drifted_site_ref as optional with a default behavior (lowest-scoring site). This clarifies semantics beyond the schema descriptions.

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 explains that the tool finds replacement candidates when a saved site drifts, with specific context (Phase 5, triggered by get_shortlist refresh or set_shortlist_alert firing). It distinguishes between two tiers and drift analysis, making the purpose highly specific and actionable.

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 states when to use the tool: when a saved site drifts. It also notes that candidates come from the current shortlist only and suggests using save_to_shortlist to widen the pool, providing clear context. No explicit exclusions are given, but the trigger conditions are well-defined.

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