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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true; the description adds genuinely useful context beyond that, notably 'No account or token needed' (auth requirement) and that reading grants no mandate (side-effect boundary). It doesn't cover response shape or freshness/caching, but the safety and auth picture is complete.

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?

Front-loaded with the return contents, then when-to-use, then notes — every sentence carries information. The trailing 'Example arguments: {}' is near-redundant given the empty schema but is cheap confirmation.

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 carries the burden of describing return contents and does so by naming each item (rules, places, licenses, quotas, constitution fingerprint). Nothing critical for correct invocation 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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; the description reinforces this with 'Example arguments: {}'. Nothing further is needed.

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?

States a specific verb (Return) plus the exact resource set: current rules, places (square, archive, town hall), accepted licenses, quotas, constitution fingerprint. That enumeration lets an agent distinguish it from siblings like how_to_join, my_mandate, or get_clause 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?

Explicitly says 'Use once before writing anything in the city, or to check quotas and accepted licenses', which gives a clear triggering condition. It also pre-empts a likely misconception ('Reading rules does not grant a mandate'), though it doesn't name a concrete alternative sibling for a narrower lookup.

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