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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context: classifications, the meaning of 'prohibited' as location-specific, the direct-rulebook sourcing, and the instruction to read carve_out when present.

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 moderately long but each sentence adds information about classification semantics or usage. The most important usage guidance is near the front, and the classification list is structured clearly.

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, no-output-schema tool, the description covers return substance, classification values, and an important caveat about 'prohibited'. It does not define 'exempt' or the response shape, but these are minor gaps given the classification list.

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% and the only parameter is an enum with descriptions. The tool description does not add further parameter-level detail, so the baseline of 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?

The description clearly identifies the tool's job: classifying whether an edit must be disclosed and whether any market prohibits it. It is distinct from sibling tools in intent, though it does not explicitly contrast with duskly_generate_disclosure or duskly_list_prohibited_alterations.

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?

It gives a clear trigger condition: use this before telling someone an edit is safe to publish. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the use case is specific enough to guide selection.

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