gateway_process_candidates_discover

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already communicates that this is a read-only operation, so the description does not need to repeat that. It adds the source condition, 'sanitized process events', but provides no additional behavioral context such as result ordering, pagination, or the meaning of 'repeated' process candidates.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It earns its place but is under-specified, so it is efficient rather than exemplary.

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?

With 6 parameters, 0% schema descriptions, and no usage context, a single-sentence description is inadequate. Even though an output schema exists and readOnlyHint is declared, the agent is left without guidance on how to construct valid inputs, what filters are expected, or what 'repeated process candidates' means operationally.

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 schema has 0% description coverage across 6 parameters, and the description does nothing to compensate. It does not explain what events_json, systems_json, query, period_days, limit, or project_ids_json mean semantically; the phrase 'sanitized process events' only vaguely maps to events_json.

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 states a specific action ('Discover') and a specific resource ('repeated process candidates') scoped to 'sanitized process events.' This is not a tautology and helps differentiate from siblings like gateway_process_events_search, though 'process candidates' remains vague and no explicit sibling comparison is made.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. It implies the input must be sanitized process events, but it never tells the agent when this discovery is appropriate or how it relates to sibling process tools.

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