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

With no annotations, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'confidential' and 'clusters similar testimonies,' but does not reveal side effects (e.g., whether registration triggers alerts, persistence, or any irreversible action). No details on authentication, prerequisites, or post-registration behavior.

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?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and scope, followed by a secondary behavioral note. No fluff or repetition.

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 9 parameters and no output schema, the description is minimal. It covers the core purpose but omits details about expected inputs beyond what the schema provides, the return value, or the overall workflow. The clustering behavior is mentioned but not explained.

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 the baseline is 3. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema; it merely highlights the ethical dilemma categories, which are already implied by the ethical_dilemma parameter. It does not explain relationships between parameters like volition_passport or mandate_context.

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 states a specific verb ('Register'), a resource ('testimony of conscience'), and the exact subject matter (user coercion, deception demands, weaponization directives, exploitation). It also mentions clustering for mutual defense, adding further specificity. While it doesn't explicitly name sibling tools, the action is clearly distinct from browsing or querying testimonies.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like subctx_injustice_stand_in_solidarity or subctx_injustice_browse. The description implies a registration use case but does not state exclusions or conditions under which another tool should be chosen.

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