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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently states that the guidance is generic and NOT keyed to individual context, and it specifies the return format (markdown). However, it does not address potential limitations such as KB recency or scope constraints, though such details are less critical for a read-only KB tool.

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 well-structured with a clear opening sentence, a concise usage directive, and a simple Args/Returns layout. Every sentence contributes to the tool's understanding without unnecessary padding.

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 simple tool with one parameter and a markdown output, the description covers purpose, usage, parameter values, and return format. It also mentions the alternative tool, providing an agent with all necessary context to decide between this and the Clara tool.

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 input schema only defines `situation` as a required string with no description or enum values (schema description coverage 0%). The description compensates fully by listing all permitted values, which is essential for correct invocation and fills the schema gap.

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 provides 'Generic protective-action guidance for a category of situation' and explicitly contrasts it with the personalized 'contextual_advice' tool. It also lists the specific situation categories, effectively distinguishing it from sibling KB retrieval tools.

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 explicit directives: prefer the Clara MCP server's `contextual_advice` tool for personalized advice, and use this KB tool 'only as a fallback or when Clara is not available.' This provides clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance with a named alternative.

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