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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world traits, so the bar is lower; the description still adds material context by declaring the operation stateless and non-persistent, and clarifying that monitoring and a Brier track record live only in the authenticated tier. That is real disclosure beyond the annotations.

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 usage trigger, then the extraction scope, then the stateless/authenticated contrast. Three dense sentences with little waste, though the parenthetical and tier caveat make it slightly longer than strictly necessary.

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 the burden of describing the result, and it does so by naming the assumption categories returned. Nothing critical for invocation is missing; only return format/pagination details are absent, which is minor for a single-input extraction tool.

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% for the single 'text' parameter, so the schema already defines the input. The description adds only a light constraint on what kind of text qualifies (strategy/plan/memo), which is marginal over the schema's 'Strategy / plan / memo text to analyze' — 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 ('extracts the falsifiable, load-bearing assumptions') and pins the output further as 'dated/quantified bets + structural findings.' It also distinguishes itself from the sibling set by contrasting the stateless extraction with the authenticated persistent registry.

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 a concrete trigger: 'Use when the user pastes a strategy, plan, or memo and wants its hidden bets made explicit.' The 'stateless taster — nothing is stored' clause tells the agent when NOT to use it (persistence/monitoring needs the authenticated tier). It does not, however, route the agent away from the related sibling detect_tensions.

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