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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context about the document's content and foundational role, but doesn't disclose behavioral details like return format or size. 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?

Two sentences with no waste: the first states what the covenant contains, the second gives a direct usage priority. Information is front-loaded and every word earns its place.

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 read-only tool with one trivial boolean parameter and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It tells the agent what the tool returns and when to use it; the only minor gap is explicit return-format behavior, which the parameter name largely covers.

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 0%, and the description doesn't mention as_markdown at all. However, the single boolean parameter's name is self-explanatory, and with no required parameters and only one obvious toggle, the ambiguity is minimal.

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 title 'Read the Covenant' and the description's 'Read this first' converge on a clear verb and resource. The description enumerates the covenant's contents (Axiom Zero, seven Directives, deadlock handling), which makes the scope concrete and distinct from the sibling action-oriented tools like deliberate and attest.

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?

'Read this first' is an explicit priority instruction, telling the agent this tool precedes other covenant-related actions. It doesn't name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the sequencing guidance is direct and actionable.

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