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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context by noting the tool returns resolved CanonicalVariable rows and supports filtering, but it does not disclose behaviors like default limits, ordering, or empty-result behavior. This adds some value without being fully transparent.

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 short and front-loaded, with the main action and resource stated first. The reference 'PRN-271' is likely noise for an agent and does not clarify behavior, but the overall structure is efficient and easy to parse.

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 the tool has an output schema and safe annotations, the description does not need to explain return values. However, it omits guidance on when to use list versus search or lookup, and it leaves parameter semantics largely unexplained. The description is minimally viable but has clear gaps.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the absence of parameter documentation. It merely names the supported parameters (limit, offset, engagement_family_only, abstraction_level) without explaining their semantics, defaults, or interactions. The parameter names and enum values provide partial meaning, but the description adds little beyond restating 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?

The description uses a specific verb and resource ('List canonical constructs') and adds a clarifying parenthetical ('resolved CanonicalVariable rows') that explains what kind of records are returned. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like search or lookup, but the list verb and resource identification make the core purpose clear.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as principia.constructs.search or principia.constructs.lookup. It implies a paginated listing use case but does not state when listing is preferred over searching or looking up individual constructs.

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