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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly discloses that the returned content is static per contract version and that repeated calls are unnecessary. It could go further by stating that this is a read-only operation with no side effects, but the static and session-scoped guidance covers the most important behavior.

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 deliver all essential information with no filler. The content list is front-loaded, and the usage warning occupies the second sentence without redundancy.

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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it names the return contents, specifies when to call it, and explains why repeated calls are unnecessary. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly 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 clarify. The schema coverage is trivially 100% as an empty object, and the description adds useful context about what the returned instructions contain.

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 uses a specific verb ('Return') and a specific resource ('versioned usage instructions for Document Map consumers'), and enumerates the actual content: binding rule, field semantics, dominant_form action table, and routing discipline. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like extract_document_map, which extract maps rather than returning instructions.

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 states exactly when to call it ('once per session before working with maps from extract_document_map') and explicitly warns against repeated calls because the text is static. This is direct usage guidance that an agent can act on without inference.

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