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

The readOnlyHint annotation already declares this is a safe read operation. The description adds content scope—what Eous is and does not do—and the instruction to read before submitting, which is behavioral guidance. It does not contradict annotations and provides appropriate context for an informational tool, though it omits specifics about output format.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that communicates purpose, scope, and usage in under 25 words. Every phrase earns its place—'what Eous is', 'what it does and does not do', 'how to work with Forged Lucidity', and 'Read this before submitting'—with no redundancy or filler.

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 zero-parameter informational tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, scope, and usage guidance. It does not describe the return format, but that is a minor omission given the tool's simple nature and the readOnly annotation. The description is sufficient for an agent to know when and why to invoke it.

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 has zero parameters, so the schema imposes no burden. Baseline for 0 params is 4; the description correctly avoids any parameter-related information since none exist. There is nothing more needed for parameter semantics.

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 the tool's purpose as providing an overview of Eous ('what Eous is, what it does and does not do') and guidance on working with Forged Lucidity. It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like check_status or submit_claim by being an informational reference rather than an action, and the 'Read this before submitting' hint reinforces its role as a prerequisite.

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 explicitly instructs the agent to read this before submitting, giving a clear when-to-use directive relative to sibling submit_claim. It also provides contextual guidance on how to work with Forged Lucidity, implying this tool should be consulted for background before other actions. It does not name alternatives explicitly but the usage context is clear.

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