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

Annotations already declare this a safe, idempotent, read-only operation, so the bar is lower, and the description still adds real behavior: validity, owner, scope and contradictions are checked live at query time. It also discloses that includeHistory surfaces non-eligible entries only with explicit blockers and never as approved truth, which is a meaningful semantic distinction an agent would not get from the annotations.

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?

Four tight sentences, each carrying distinct information: what it finds, live validation behavior, includeHistory semantics, and the reuse caveat. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and has no filler, though the final caveat is advisory rather than actionable for the invocation itself.

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 no output schema, the description should do more to convey what the results look like and how approval status is represented. It covers the query semantics and the history flag but leaves the other three parameters and the return shape unexplained, which is a real gap for a five-parameter discovery tool.

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 coverage is 20% – only projectId is documented, and entryId, question and limit carry no meaning in either the schema or the description. The description does add genuine semantics for includeHistory (exposes non-eligible history with blockers, not approved truth), which partially compensates, but four of five parameters remain opaque.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Find current approved reusable answers for this dossier.' That is enough to separate it from write-side siblings like helvabase_propose_library_entry or helvabase_retire_library_entry, though it never explicitly names helvabase_library_source or helvabase_reuse_library_entry as alternatives. Purpose is clear but differentiation from siblings is left to inference.

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 implies when the tool is appropriate (retrieving approved reusable answers for a dossier) and gives a conditional hint for includeHistory, plus a caveat that reuse requires adaptation and fresh review. It does not state when NOT to use it or point to sibling tools for adjacent needs such as sourcing, proposing, or retiring library entries. Usage is implied rather than spelled out.

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