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

With no annotations provided, the description fully bears the transparency burden. It discloses the priority logic for triggers, clarifies that working days are an input not a computation, and specifies the return structure ({ due, reason, detail }). No contradictions or hidden behaviors.

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?

The description is three concise sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: purpose statement, logic explanation, and caveat about working days. No fluff, every sentence earns its place.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (5 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the core logic, output shape, and a key behavioral note. It omits error handling or input validation details, but for a judgment tool without required fields, it is adequately complete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the role of each parameter (e.g., gate_reached triggers 'gate', working_days_since_last_standup triggers 'weekly') and clarifies that working_days_since_last_standup is an input. Though date formats are unspecified, the description adds significant meaning beyond the raw schema.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Given agent-supplied facts, decide whether a standup is due.' It specifies the verb (decide) and resource (standup due) and differentiates from siblings by detailing the exact logic and output format, leaving no ambiguity.

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 explains the decision logic but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings like 'evaluate_gate' or 'decision_log_guidance'. Usage is implied (when needing to determine if a standup is due), but no exclusions or alternatives are provided.

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