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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does disclose meaningful traits: no query is required, it returns current unresolved state, and it reveals the internal ranking/selection logic (status=live_wire first, then productive crossings, high-strength edges). It doesn't mention rate limits or auth, but for a read-only orientation tool the disclosed selection behavior is substantial.

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?

It's front-loaded with the purpose and structured into (1)/(2) numbered items, which aids scanning. But the first sentence is long and dense, with nested parentheticals ('pulled from saved crossings...') that could be tightened; it's adequate but not lean.

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 no-required-param orientation tool with no output schema, the description explains both returned fields, their sources, and their interpretive meaning ('where the live thinking is'), plus when to invoke it. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly 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% and the single 'limit' parameter is already fully documented in the schema (default 8, max 20). The description adds no parameter detail, so the baseline of 3 applies since 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?

The description states a concrete verb ('Returns') and names the two specific resources it returns: open_tensions and hot_pieces. The phrase 'orientation tool for cold-start sessions' sets scope, and the closing line clarifies it takes no query and returns current state. It's clear what the tool does, though it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from the closest sibling, find_tensions.

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 explicit sequencing guidance ('Use this immediately after graph_stats to move from orientation to thinking') and states the no-query condition. However, it never names or excludes the similar sibling find_tensions, so the agent has no explicit routing rule against the most confusable alternative.

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