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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and a closed-world boundary, so safety and side effects need no restating. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the return shape per node and the caveat that `tagPaths` can include paths the tree does not name, which warns the agent the tree is not exhaustive.

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, both front-loaded, with the purpose stated before the field inventory. The field list is dense but every item earns its place, since no output schema exists to carry it. A shorter framing of `pageCount` vs `pageCountDeep` would be slightly crisper.

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 and no parameters, the description must carry the return contract and it does: node fields (`path`, name, description, `pageCount`, `pageCountDeep`) and the top-level `tagPaths` behavior. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly or interpret the result is missing.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate, which is the baseline 4 case. The description's references to `path`/`tagPath` values describe outputs rather than inputs and do not mislead.

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 resource (the category tree of the AcuiQ reference wiki) with an explicit scope and value claim ('the cheapest way to orient before searching'). An agent can tell this apart from get_pages, list_pages, and search_wiki without opening any schema.

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 positions itself as the orientation step before searching and names the two siblings (list_pages, search_wiki) that consume the `path` values it returns, which is a real routing signal. It stops short of stating when not to use it, e.g., that it should be skipped if a path is already known, so it is clear but not exhaustive.

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