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

With no annotations, the description is the sole source of behavioral information. It hints at an explanatory output but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, what side effects exist, or how invalid truthState values are handled. The 'complete interpretation contract' is mentioned but not defined.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the primary verb. It avoids unnecessary words, though it sacrifices informational content for brevity.

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 tool with one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description should clarify the domain-specific concepts (e.g., what counts as a truth state, what the interpretation contract contains). It does not, leaving the agent to guess the meaning of the enum values and the structure of the response.

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?

The schema provides an enum of six truthState values, but the description gives zero parameter information. It does not explain the meaning or effect of each enum value, nor whether the parameter is optional despite being non-required in the schema. There is no compensation for the 0% schema coverage.

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 clearly identifies a specific task: explaining what an OEX truth state permits and returning an interpretation contract. The verb 'explain' plus unique resource 'OEX truth state' distinguishes it from many sibling tools, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'explain_confidence'.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like explain_confidence or other query tools. The description lacks any context about prerequisites, comparisons, or exclusions.

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