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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the result is structure-only with no content and shares query_memory's shape, which is useful context, but the 'reserved/when γ lands' framing leaves it unclear whether it is operational now.

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?

Two sentences with little waste, and the structure-only constraint is front-loaded. But the β/γ symbolic notation and the 'reserved for...' clause consume space without clarifying behavior for a reader who lacks the internal shorthand.

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 partially compensates by naming the return shape and equating it to query_memory. Beyond that it leaves the nested 'plan' object's relationship to the output and the tool's present-day readiness ambiguous, which is a real gap for a query 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% for the single 'plan' object, so the schema already carries the parameter detail. The description only alludes to 'a structured query' and adds no syntax or value guidance beyond what the schema documents; 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 verb 'render' and resource 'structured query' are present, and it distinguishes itself by stating the output is a 'STRUCTURE-ONLY result set' with 'identical shape to query_memory.' However, the cryptic 'β = structure' / 'γ' notation and the framing as 'reserved for richer rendering' muddy whether this tool is even currently usable.

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 implies a future condition ('reserved for richer rendering when content access (γ) lands') but never states when an agent should pick this over query_memory or query_memory_content. No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided against eight siblings.

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