dr_strategy

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuinely useful caveat beyond that: the output is 'feasible tiers and required capabilities, not a guarantee' — framing the result as advisory rather than prescriptive. It stops short of describing how feasibility is judged or how ties are broken.

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?

A single dense sentence that front-loads the action, the four tiers, the evaluation criteria, and the output caveat. Every clause earns its place with 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?

An output schema exists and annotations cover the safety profile, so return values do not need explaining. But with seven required-ish inputs at 0% schema description coverage, the description leaves half the inputs semantically opaque, which is a meaningful gap for a planning tool whose accuracy depends on those inputs.

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 0% across seven parameters, so the description carries the full burden, yet it only obliquely references rtoMinutes, rpoMinutes, and dataGB. Four parameters — workload, statefulComponents, regulatoryResidency, replicationBandwidthMbps — are never mentioned, and no units, formats, or significance are given for the ones it does hint at.

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 verb ('Compare') and resource ('disaster recovery tiers') and enumerates the four candidate tiers, plus the criteria used (RTO, RPO, data constraints). No sibling tool covers DR strategy, so the agent can distinguish this from architecture_pattern, capacity_plan, etc. on domain alone.

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?

Usage is implied by the purpose: an agent would call this when selecting a DR tier for a workload given recovery objectives. However, there is no explicit 'use when' condition, no prerequisite guidance (e.g. must have RTO/RPO defined first), and no reference to alternatives or follow-on tools like runbook or failure_rehearsal.

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