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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds no behavioral context beyond labeling the tool as optional and dedicated, so it contributes little beyond what annotations already provide.

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 short sentences with no filler. The key fact—this is an optional alternative to another method—is stated immediately, and the alternative invocation is provided precisely.

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 a single required parameter, an output schema, and annotations that establish safety, the description is largely sufficient. It could clarify the relationship with check_sales_mission_status, but the core information an agent needs to retrieve a mission result is present.

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 100% for the only parameter, job_id, which has a clear description referencing the start/run_sales_mission return value. The description adds no additional parameter context, but the schema already carries the full semantic burden.

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 labels it as a dedicated result tool and the title mentions getting a sales mission result. It distinguishes itself from run_sales_mission by noting that the same result can be obtained via an alternative action, though it does not explicitly mention the status-checking sibling.

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 explicitly presents an alternative call path: run_sales_mission(action="result", job_id=...). This gives an agent a clear decision point between two approaches, though it stops short of stating when one should be preferred over the other or when to use status versus result tools.

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