Suggest Reallocation

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

Despite having readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/destructiveHint annotations, the description adds substantial behavioral context: it explains the two-tier output (same-region vs cross-region), the drift_is_systemic logic (systemic vs idiosyncratic), the fact that DC Hub does reduction but the user makes the final pick, and that candidates are scoped to this shortlist. There is no contradiction with annotations.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place, covering trigger, output tiers, systemic logic, and scope. It is well-structured with a logical progression, though slightly long. It could be parsed into shorter sentences without losing content, but it is not wasteful.

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 tool's complexity and the existence of an output schema, the description provides complete contextual coverage: the drift trigger, the two result tiers and their semantics, the drift_is_systemic decision aid, the scope restriction, and the action-oriented purpose. It fully equips an agent to understand when and how to invoke the tool appropriately.

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 input schema already provides thorough descriptions for both parameters (shortlist_name and drifted_site_ref), including what happens when drifted_site_ref is omitted. The tool description itself does not add new semantic meaning to the parameters; it only contextualizes them within the reallocation workflow. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states the tool's function: when a saved site drifts, it finds replacement candidates from the same shortlist. It uses specific verbs and resources ('get replacement candidates from the rest of that shortlist') and distinguishes itself from siblings by referencing the drift trigger and alert context, and noting that candidates come only from this shortlist.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool ('When a saved site DRIFTS...') and even specifies how it is triggered via get_shortlist refresh or set_shortlist_alert. It also gives practical advice on widening the pool via save_to_shortlist. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when NOT to use it, so it falls slightly short of a full 5.

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