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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one useful interpretive note — that it surfaces contradictions rather than averaging them — but says nothing about scope limits, missing-space behavior, or response shape.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the resource before the usage triggers. The final 'DSGHT surfaces contradictions rather than averaging them' sentence is slightly promotional but does add interpretive framing, so little is wasted.

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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies what to fetch and when. It is essentially complete, with only sibling disambiguation and return-character details left implicit.

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% and the single slug parameter is documented as coming from list_public_spaces, so the schema carries the full burden. The description adds no format, source, or validation detail beyond it; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Get the structural tensions ... for a published future-space') and glosses the resource with 'load-bearing contradictions,' which is more informative than the title alone. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling detect_tensions, so the agent must infer that 'public'/'published' is the distinguishing scope.

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 concrete trigger conditions: 'Use when the user asks what forces conflict, what could break a strategy, or what the tensions/paradoxes are.' That is clear usage context, but it names no alternative (e.g. detect_tensions) or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer when a sibling is preferable.

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