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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds meaningful behavioral context about what the list contains (epistemic status, confidence, underpinned units) and characterizes the epistemic ladder, which goes beyond the structured fields.

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?

Three sentences, no filler. The core purpose and taxonomy are front-loaded, followed by a practical usage tip and a filtering hint. Every sentence earns its place.

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's moderate complexity, an output schema exists, annotations cover the safety profile, and parameters are fully documented. The description supplies the conceptual context of the epistemic ladder and a concrete use case. Minor missing details like pagination or ordering are not critical for a list tool with an output schema.

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 coveage is 100%: both locale and claim_type have descriptions and enums. The description adds only the hint about filtering by claim_type, which references the parameter but does not add substantial new semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('List'), a clear resource ('load-bearing claims of the corpus'), and enumerates the epistemic tags, confidence, and underpinned units. This makes it easily distinguishable from the singular get_claim and other list_* siblings.

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?

It provides a clear use case: 'Use this before quoting the handbook to know whether a statement is evidence, a reading of the industry, or a position taken.' It implies an alternative (quoting the handbook directly) but does not explicitly name sibling tools like get_claim as the alternative for a single claim.

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