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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent/openWorld annotations, the description adds the critical caveat that ranking reflects openness/activity/verifiability and 'never a safety, quality, or returns judgment,' which prevents an agent from overstating the result. It also discloses the output structure (slots, Sato Score, liveness, deploy-spec status, honest gaps). No contradiction with annotations.

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 USE WHEN trigger and every sentence earns its place: input guidance, output composition, ranking caveat, read-only note, and an example. It is detailed but not bloated.

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?

Without an output schema, the description dequately explains what the caller receives: a trust-ranked stack bucketed into slots, per-pick metadata, and explicit gaps. Given the tool's complexity and the rich annotations, nothing essential is missing for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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 params are already well documented. The description adds a concrete example for goal and chain, but it does not add substantively new semantics for max_per_slot or response_format beyond what the schema already provides.

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: turn a plain-word goal into a trust-ranked stack of concrete directory resources. It is clearly distinct from sibling search/resource/get tools because it produces a bucketed recommendation stack, not a search result or single resource lookup.

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?

Tt opens with a clear USE WHEN trigger: someone describes an agent they want to build and needs concrete components rather than general advice. It does not name sibling alternatives explicitly, but the trigger plus the 'rather than general advice' exclusion gives sufficient routing context.

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