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

Goes well past the readOnly/openWorld annotations: states no auth is required, that unknown filter values are silently IGNORED and surfaced in `notes` rather than erroring, and gives the return envelope. The `first_try_success_label` warning ("not yet measured", not "0%", null must not be rendered as a number) is exactly the kind of trap-prevention context annotations cannot carry.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded and every sentence carries information; nothing is filler. It is one dense block, though — the return-shape detail and the label caveat would scan faster as separated lines, and 'same schema' is an ambiguous aside.

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 supplies the return envelope ({ ok, total, returned, offset, entries[], facets, notes }), explains what `facets` and `notes` are for, and flags the null-vs-zero pitfall. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly or interpret results is missing.

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 already documents its enum values, defaults and the status/evidence orthogonality, so the description is largely restating structured data. The framework it adds (freshness gate, live facet vocabulary) mirrors what the schema already says, so baseline 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?

Specific verb+resource ('List and filter the Immersive Commons Vault') plus the distinguishing scope: procedures proven to work, no auth. It explicitly separates itself from ic_vault_match, so an agent can pick between them without opening a schema.

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?

Names the alternative and the condition that selects it ('use ic_vault_match to ask whether a specific company qualifies; use ic_vault_feedback_submit to report whether a recipe worked'). It also tells the agent to read `facets` to discover filter vocabulary instead of guessing, which is actionable usage guidance.

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