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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the feature is off by default, that global flags cap per-agent settings, and that 'Jev never grants permission' – a notable behavioral constraint. This goes beyond a simple 'read' statement and helps the agent set expectations about what the tool will return or enforce.

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?

Three short sentences, each earning its place: what it reads, the default-off behavior, and the permission constraint. No fluff, front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 simple read tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the key behavioral context (default off, global caps, Jev's permission stance). It doesn't describe return values, but with no output schema and a simple read operation, this is a minor gap. The privacy note about the connection parameter is in the schema, not the description, but the description's behavioral notes are sufficient for an agent to decide when to call it.

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 100%, so the schema already documents the single 'connection' parameter thoroughly, including its source, retention, and privacy constraints. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail, but with full schema coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Read your private semantic policy and effective feature flags.' This clearly identifies what the tool does. It doesn't explicitly distinguish it from siblings like semantic_policy_update, but the read-only framing and mention of 'effective feature flags' gives enough clarity.

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 provides context on when to use it: to read private semantic policy and effective feature flags. It also gives behavioral guidance ('Off by default; global flags cap per-agent settings. Jev never grants permission.'), which implies when the tool is relevant. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives, but the sibling list includes semantic_policy_update, and the read vs. update distinction is implicit.

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