Preview Evergreen eligibility

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered structurally. The description adds real value beyond that by disclosing the eligibility gate ("mature measured performance") and the non-mutating confirmation, though it says nothing about auth requirements, rate limits, or what happens when the post is not yet eligible.

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?

Two tightly written sentences: the capability first, the non-mutating guarantee second. No filler, no repetition of the title, and the key constraint is front-loaded where an agent will read it.

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 single-parameter, read-only preview with no output schema, the description conveys the two things the caller needs back: eligibility and a suggested cadence. It leaves open the definition of "mature measured performance" and never mentions the return shape when the post is ineligible, which is a minor gap given the tool's simplicity.

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% for the single required parameter sourcePostId. The description only implicitly characterizes the input as "a published post," which hints at the expected identifier but does not specify format (post ID string vs. URL) or whether unpublished posts are rejected.

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 names a specific verb (check) and resource (published post's measured performance) plus the byproduct (recommended Evergreen cadence), and immediately separates itself from the create/update/activate queue siblings by stating it does not create or schedule anything.

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 negative boundary ("does not create or schedule anything") tells the agent when this tool is not the right choice, which implicitly positions it as the pre-flight check before create_evergreen_queue. It stops short of explicitly naming that sibling as the follow-up action, so it lacks the full routing guidance of a 5.

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