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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the cost ($0.10) and API key requirement, which are useful operational constraints, but says nothing about what 'states' are, how they are filtered, or output behavior beyond what the output schema likely covers.

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 resource and includes cost/auth details. It is efficient, though the parenthetical may be too terse to be useful.

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 an output schema present, return values need not be explained, but the description fails to explain the core concept of 'permitted assertion states' or how the temporal parameters affect results. For a tool with five parameters and 40% schema coverage, the description is incomplete.

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?

Schema description coverage is only 40%, and the description provides no information about the five parameters (known_at, valid_at, people_id/person_id alias, predicates). Two parameters have schema descriptions (people_id and person_id alias), but the temporal and predicate parameters are undocumented, and the description does not compensate.

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 states the resource ('assertion states for a person') and implies a retrieval action, but the verb is not explicit and the phrase 'flagged life-graph; off by default' is ambiguous. It is distinguishable from siblings like get_life_graph or get_person_links only by the specialized 'states' concept, which is not clearly defined.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_life_graph, get_context_pack, or get_life_context. The parenthetical about being off by default suggests limited availability but does not give actionable conditions for invocation.

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