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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, closed-world and non-destructive, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description's contribution is that the list is fixed at 15 traits and each entry carries a plain-language description and covered skills—useful framing, but largely echoed by the output schema.

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, front-loaded with what the tool returns, then the intended use. No filler and nothing repeated from the title.

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 inputs, full annotation coverage, and an output schema present, the description only needs to establish the content and purpose of the list—which it does, including the count and per-trait fields.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and it does not confuse the absence of inputs.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Lists the 15 social and emotional learning (SEL) traits') plus the exact payload shape (description + everyday skills), which is more than a restated name. It does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tools (find_practice_situation, get_site_overview, get_what_to_say), though their functions are plainly distinct.

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 it to explain what a trait means for a child aged 6–14' gives a clear intended context and audience. It stops short of when-not-to-use or naming alternatives, but for a parameterless reference-list tool that is a minor gap.

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