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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds that the tool returns a 'transparent rule' and uses four 1-5 ratings, which is useful but does not significantly extend beyond 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?

The description is extremely concise with only two sentences, front-loading the purpose and usage context. Every word adds value, and there is no unnecessary information.

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?

Given that the tool has four parameters (all described), a well-documented schema, and an output schema, the description provides sufficient context about when to use the tool and its outputs. It could briefly mention the output schema (e.g., 'returns a structured decision recommendation'), but the current description is largely 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 coverage is 100% and each parameter (impact, reversibility, uncertainty, delayCost) has a clear description in the schema. The description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 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 uses a specific verb ('assess decision readiness') and clearly states the tool's function: determining whether to protect downside, run a bounded test, or close the evidence window. It differentiates from sibling tools like hemelion_map_clarity_decision by focusing on non-regulated decisions with quantified ratings.

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 explicitly states when to use (non-regulated decisions) and provides an important exclusion ('Do not use for emergencies or professional legal, medical, or financial advice'). It implies when not to use, but does not explicitly compare with sibling tools.

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