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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well. It discloses that the tool discerns input type, finds and verifies, declines rather than guessing, opens a session-level gate, and generates nothing. These are concrete behavioral traits beyond what any schema would show.

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 moderately long but well-structured: starts with the core action, explains the discernment behavior, then the gate side effect, and ends with a boundary ('Nothing is generated'). Every sentence adds value, though a phrase like 'the same way it opens for a person' could be trimmed for brevity.

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?

For a tool with one parameter, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It covers purpose, input semantics, behavioral rules, side effects (gate opening), and limitations, leaving little ambiguity about what the tool does and how it should be invoked.

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?

The schema only says 'text' is 'what you are bringing,' but the description enriches this by providing concrete examples of valid inputs (question, claim, word, mind). This adds meaningful semantic guidance for constructing the parameter, well beyond the schema's minimal description.

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 clearly states the tool's role: it accepts any kind of input ('a question, a claim to check, a word to study, or what is actually on your mind') and responds appropriately by discerning the type and finding/verifying. It also distinguishes itself as 'the door' that unlocks witness tools, differentiating it from siblings like search or verify.

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 conveys when to use this tool: when you have an open-ended inquiry or need a gateway to other tools. It explains the conditional 'if what you ask turns toward God, the Gate opens' and that it 'declines rather than guessing,' but it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions. This context is useful but lacks direct 'use X instead' guidance.

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