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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), yet the description still adds substantive context: the four classification meanings, the crucial caveat that "prohibited" means prohibited somewhere rather than everywhere, the instruction to read carve_out when present, and the provenance of the rulings. With no output schema, this interpretation of return values is exactly the kind of disclosure an agent needs.

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 purpose sentence, then a usage instruction, then the classification glossary, then a caveat — a sensible information hierarchy. The one soft spot is the mildly promotional clause about rulebooks "read directly rather than summarised from secondary sources," which adds flavor more than operational value.

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 return-value burden and does so: it names the classification values, explains each, mentions the accompanying reasoning, and flags the carve_out field. Combined with the covered safety annotations, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret this 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?

There is a single required enum parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the accepted values. The description only implies the parameter is an edit type ("a given edit") and adds no syntax or selection guidance beyond that, so the 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?

The description opens with a specific verb+resource pair: it classifies whether a listing-photo edit must be disclosed and whether any market prohibits it. That is far more concrete than the title alone and clearly distinct from the generate/list/verify siblings. It stops short of explicitly naming a sibling tool to contrast against, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

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?

"Use this before telling someone an edit is safe to publish" gives a clear triggering context and ordering relative to downstream disclosure work. No alternatives are named or excluded, though, so an agent isn't told when to reach for duskly_list_prohibited_alterations or duskly_generate_disclosure instead.

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