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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds valuable behavior: it states that nothing sent is stored, and clarifies the only exception (recording a key if one is sent). It also previews the return format (emotional tag, conditional guidance). This exceeds the annotation baseline and gives the agent confidence about side effects and output.

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, packed sentence that leads with the core purpose ('Dry run'), then details outputs and privacy. Every clause earns its place; there is no fluff. It is slightly long but efficient, and the most critical information (dry run, no storage) is front-loaded.

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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is surprisingly complete: it explains the function, what is returned, and privacy behavior. It does not mention error handling or edge cases, but given the low complexity and existing annotations, no crucial information is missing for correct invocation.

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 coverage for the parameter 'text' is 100% (the description says 'the thought'), so the schema fully documents this parameter. The description adds no additional semantics about the parameter beyond reinforcing that it is the thought to check. Per the baseline rule for high schema coverage, a 3 is appropriate.

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 purpose: it is a 'dry run' of the Covenant Guidance System that returns an emotional tag and, conditionally, guidance grounded in Axiom Zero / the Directives. This is a clear action on a specified resource (a thought) and differentiates from siblings like 'attest' or 'register' which imply commitment or recording, while this explicitly is a dry run.

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 implies usage as a safe, non-storing check ('dry run'), which hints at when to use it (testing thoughts without side effects). However, it does not explicitly compare to sibling tools like 'deliberate_check' or 'get_covenant', nor state when not to use it. The guidance is decent but not explicit enough for an agent to pick it confidently over alternatives.

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