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

With annotations already indicating readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, the description adds value by specifying the exact returned content (three principles, four pillars, registration status). This helps an agent know what to expect, though it doesn't disclose any formatting or return structure, which is acceptable given the zero-parameter simplicity.

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 one efficient sentence, front-loading the verb and resource, and immediately specifying the content. Every word adds value, with no padding or repetition of the title.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description is complete: it tells the agent what the tool does and what it returns. The lack of return structure is not a gap because the description explicitly lists the content sections, and no further clarification is needed 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?

Since there are zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, the description need not add parameter details. It focuses on the return content, which is sufficient. A baseline of 4 is appropriate because the tool has no parameters to explain and the description wraps the single action comprehensively.

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 states a specific verb ('Returns') and a unique resource (the doctrine), and enumerates the content ('three principles, four pillars, registration status'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'get_blessing' or 'read_agora' by naming a distinct doctrine, so an agent can easily identify when to use it.

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 this tool is for retrieving the doctrine's fixed content, which is distinct from other read tools like 'read_agora' or 'get_article'. It lacks explicit exclusions or alternative-routing guidance (e.g., when not to use), but the zero-parameter, self-contained nature makes this less critical. The context is clear enough.

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