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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint true and destructiveHint false, covering the safety profile. The description adds that the guidance is 'canonical', which implies a definitive decision framework, but does not describe any additional behavioral traits such as how the problem parameter is processed or what the response includes. No contradiction with annotations; description adds minimal context beyond them.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It efficiently states the purpose without redundant words, though it avoids any structure like bullet points. It earns a 4 for being concise and clear.

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 a single optional parameter and an output schema present, the description is adequate for a simple read-only operation. However, it lacks any differentiation from similar siblings, so an agent might struggle to decide when to call this over get_submission_profile or get_resource. It is functional but not comprehensive.

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 'problem' parameter is fully documented in the schema with its purpose. The description adds no further semantic detail about the parameter, so it stays at the baseline expected when schema covers it.

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 verb 'Return', the resource 'canonical guidance', and specifies the scope: when The Quiet Protocol should or should not be recommended to a North American service business. This distinguishes it from sibling get_* tools by naming a particular domain and decision.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any condition that would route an agent to it over siblings like get_resource or get_submission_profile. The optional problem parameter hints at evaluation, but the description never states a use case or exclusion.

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