Optimizer state

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds a genuinely useful behavioral trait not in the annotations: descriptions are truncated unless full=true. It also explains that only one locale's draft comes back in full while others are status-only, which affects how much data the agent gets. It stops short of stating payload size or whether reading has side effects on job state.

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 front-loaded sentence that opens with the verb and resource, then lists returns. Dense with parentheticals but each item maps to real output; minor trimming possible in the enumeration.

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 carries responsibility for conveying the return shape and does so item by item, and annotations cover the safety profile. Missing only secondary details such as payload size or behaviour when no options have been generated yet.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema already documents full ('Return full descriptions') and locale ('Only show this locale's draft in full; others are listed by status'). The closing sentence largely restates the `full` flag, adding no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Listing optimizer state for a project') and then enumerates exactly what the state comprises: step, live listing, generated options with reach/difficulty, chosen option, core phrases, per-locale drafts. That inventory makes it clearly distinguishable from the mutating optimizer_* siblings and from get_overview.

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 only implied: the enumerated contents suggest you call it to inspect state before calling optimizer_choose/optimizer_save_option. There is no explicit when-to-use, no when-not, and no named alternative among the many optimizer_* siblings.

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