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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description reinforces 'Read-only'. It goes further by disclosing what comes back per draft (title + category + summary) and the chapter list, plus the no-output-schema caveat that matching is wording-based. It stops short of detailing result size or ordering, but adds real value beyond the 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, front-loaded with the trigger and the payoff, with no filler. Slightly dense with multiple clauses (return contents + chapter list + exclusions) but each clause carries information.

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 output schema, the description supplies the return shape and its purpose; with a fully documented single parameter, nothing about invocation is missing. An agent knows when to call it, what to pass, what it gets back, and what to do instead.

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 is 100% and the schema itself documents the {title, summary?, aka?} shape and the wording-only matching rule. The description still adds semantics the schema doesn't: pass ALL drafted pages in one call, framed as the purpose of the parameter.

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 action (resolve drafts against the wiki before saving) with the resource (drafted pages vs existing wiki pages). It explicitly names the sibling it feeds (eigma_save_notes) and the siblings it is not (eigma_search_wiki, eigma_browse_wiki), so routing is unambiguous.

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?

Gives a crisp when ('once before eigma_save_notes, with ALL your drafted pages') and an explicit when-not with alternatives ('only for the pre-save check - to answer a question about the wiki or look a concept up, use eigma_search_wiki or eigma_browse_wiki'). The single-call batching instruction is also spelled out.

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