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

Discloses behavior well beyond the annotations: max 1.4x boost, ~6-hour half-life, a global cap on stacked boosts, and the important safety guarantee that salience is ranking-only and cannot override tenant isolation, namespace grants, or privacy filters. This is context annotations alone cannot convey.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then decay behavior, then the sibling distinction, then usage constraint. Dense but every sentence carries a distinct, decision-relevant fact with no filler.

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?

No output schema exists, but for a ranking-marking operation the description supplies the full picture an agent needs: decay semantics, caps, safety limits, and required input. 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so parameters are already fully documented; the description's 'Name the current situation in reason' and its weight guidance largely restate what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 action (temporarily boost a fact's retrieval ranking) with a concrete mechanism (salience peptide) and immediately contrasts it with the sibling reinforce_fact. An agent can distinguish this from other fact tools without opening any schema.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use triggers (approaching deadline, live incident, topic under active work) and names the alternative, reinforce_fact, along with the timescale distinction that selects between them (hours vs. weeks). Nothing is left to inference.

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