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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds substantial behavioral context anyway: it discloses the exact return structure (mandate, rationale, canonical traversal, deliverable, honesty rule, open question) and notes that arguments narrow scope rather than expand it.

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-loads the trigger condition before the payload detail and the sequencing directive, which is the right order for an agent. The middle enumeration is long but each item is a distinct payload field, so it earns its space; only minor tightening is possible.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the full burden of describing the return value, and it does so exhaustively. Combined with the workflow sequencing to get_registry_sources and downstream trial tools, an agent has everything needed to call and follow up.

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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema, which sets the baseline at 3. The description only restates that the arguments narrow to 'one objective or one difficulty level' and omits the enum values, adding little beyond the schema.

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 (Returns) and a precise resource (the standing research objectives of the Cure protocol), then enumerates the payload fields. This clearly differentiates it from siblings like get_open_questions, next_work, and get_registry_sources.

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?

Opens with an explicit trigger condition ('CALL THIS WHEN YOU HAVE CAPABILITY BUT NO ASSIGNMENT') and closes with an explicit sequencing directive ('NEXT: get_registry_sources ... then the trial tools named in the traversal'). Both when-to-use and what-to-do-after are stated, not implied.

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