Operating playbook

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

The annotations already declare this as a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world operation, so the description needn't repeat safety traits. It adds useful behavioral context by summarizing the returned content and noting that it duplicates the initialize instructions, though it does not explicitly describe the response format.

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?

Three tight sentences: the first states what is returned and its scope, the second identifies an alternative source, and the third gives usage conditions. It is front-loaded with zero waste.

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 no output schema, the description explains what the return contains (daily loop, confirmation requests, quotas, review checklist). For a zero-parameter, read-only informational tool, nothing material is missing.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly avoids parameter discussion, which is appropriate for a no-argument tool.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Returns the operating playbook for running an account through this server.' It also enumerates the playbook's contents (daily loop, confirmation requests, quotas, review checklist), making its purpose unmistakable and distinct from every sibling tool.

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?

It explicitly states the triggering conditions: 'Applies when the instructions were not kept or the user asks how the service works.' It also names the alternative source ('the same text is in the initialize instructions'), so the agent knows when this tool is redundant versus necessary.

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