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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses a key output behavior: relevance=low or no_path_reason means the den lacks that path and should not be used as evidence. It does not explicitly state read-only/side-effect status, but the query-answering framing plus this caveat covers the main risks.

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?

Three sentences with no filler: purpose, usage examples, sibling routing hint, and an output caveat all contribute value. The core purpose is front-loaded before the examples.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value details are not required from the description. The description covers what the tool does, when to use it, and an important interpretation rule, while parameter details live in the schema. It is reasonably complete, though depth/profile selection guidance is left entirely to schema descriptions.

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 schema already documents all five parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides; it only adds output-interpretation guidance, which is not parameter meaning.

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: it explains the why, principle, and pros/cons of architecture/space through causal paths, with concrete example questions. The closing reference to k_snippets also distinguishes it from a sibling for numerical/statutory content.

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?

It explicitly says to use this tool for reason-seeking questions and gives two illustrative examples. It also instructs calling k_snippets when figures or clauses are needed, offering cross-tool guidance. It does not enumerate when not to use other siblings, so it falls short of full exclusion coverage.

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