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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the content scope (audience fit, pricing, ethics), but nothing about freshness, rate limits, or behavior on repeated calls. Adequate but not rich beyond structured data.

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 what is returned before the usage trigger. No filler and every clause adds routing or scope 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?

A zero-parameter, read-only lookup with no output schema; the description fully covers what an agent needs to decide to call it and what to expect back. Nothing material 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 no parameter semantics to explain; the baseline for a 0-param tool applies. Nothing in the description misleads about inputs.

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 verb and resource ('Returns factual information about Ariadne') and enumerates the exact content covered: what it does, target audience, pricing, and ethics/privacy rules. It is unmistakably distinct from siblings audit_practice_footprint and write_sample_google_post.

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 clear triggering condition: 'Use when someone asks what Ariadne is or whether it fits their practice.' It does not explicitly rule out the sibling tools by name, but the trigger is unambiguous enough to route correctly.

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