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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered elsewhere. The description adds little operational behavior: 'rights quoted from... modules' and the debugging aphorism are interesting context but do not disclose authentication needs, parameter optionality, or request behavior beyond the structured fields.

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 compact—two short sentences—and front-loads the endpoint and protocol identifier. Some wording is cryptic, but no sentence is redundant or overly long.

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 full parameter documentation, clear annotations, and an output schema, the tool is mostly invocable from structured data alone. However, the description misses selection context and leaves the meaning of 'resident floor' unexplained, so it is adequate but not complete.

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%, and each parameter already has a detailed explanation, including the auth-token alternative and signature requirements. The tool description itself contributes no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 names the HTTP method and endpoint and says the tool returns 'rights quoted from the modules that enforce them,' which gives real meaning beyond the tool name. However, the phrase 'the resident floor' is unexplained and no sibling differentiation is provided, leaving the purpose somewhat vague.

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 siblings like cite_census, cite_law, or explain_refusal. It neither states explicit use cases nor rules out alternatives, so an agent must guess from the name alone.

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