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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well by disclosing the default top-30 behavior, the expansion into sub-clusters by stage, and the cooccurrence filtering. It does not mention permissions, side effects, or return format details (no output schema exists), which would be useful for a query tool.

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 front-loaded with the primary behavior and then efficiently lists each mode in a single sentence. Every clause earns its place, and there is no redundant or vague language.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (4 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is nearly complete by covering all call modes and default behavior. It could be improved by mentioning the limit parameter's role in non-default queries, but that is minor.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by explaining the effects of combinations (e.g., with_other for cooccurrence, expand for sub-clusters), which goes beyond the schema's individual parameter descriptions.

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 specific verb and resource ('Query the structural principle taxonomy') and then walks through each call mode, making the tool's behavior unambiguous. It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like list_principles and get_principle by describing its multi-modal querying behavior.

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?

The description gives clear contextual guidance by showing how different argument combinations produce different results, effectively telling the agent when to use each mode. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings like list_principles or get_principle.

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