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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and destructiveHint=false. The description adds specific behavioral context about what the dry run computes (enrollment count and schedule), which is not present in annotations, enhancing transparency beyond the safety hints.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action and outcome, with zero redundant words. Highly concise and well-structured.

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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It states purpose, output, and side effects. It could mention what 'id' refers to or any assumptions, but the core behavior is adequately covered.

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 input schema shows only an 'id' (string), and schema description coverage is 0%. The description does not explain the meaning of 'id' (likely the sequence ID) nor any constraints or format. It relies on the tool name and implicit context, which is insufficient given zero coverage.

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 clearly states a specific action ('Dry-run a sequence') and the resource ('sequence'), and details the output ('how many contacts would enroll now + the send schedule'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like relm_enroll (actual enrollment) and relm_get_sequence (retrieve existing sequence).

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 description implies usage as a safe pre-check before actual enrollment by emphasizing 'No side effects.' It provides clear context for when to use the tool but does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, though the dry-run nature is self-evident.

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