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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: 'Returns definitions only, never any member's evidence', 'Static reference data', 'Free L0, no authentication required'. This fully discloses what the tool does and does not expose.

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 long but every sentence carries distinct useful content: scope of data, usage guidance, privacy boundary, and operational cost/auth requirements. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and remains efficient given the amount of context needed.

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 zero-parameter static reference tool, the description fully specifies what is returned, what is not returned, when to call it, and its operational profile. No output schema exists, but the description adequately covers return semantics with 'definitions only' and 'static reference data'.

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 has zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. The description instead clarifies the output semantics and constraints, which is sufficient for an empty-argument tool.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('List the canonical trait vocabulary'), enumerates exact content (30 trait codes, categories, semantics, discovery contexts, exclusions), and clearly identifies the tool as static reference data, distinguishing it from credentialed query tools. It leaves no doubt what the tool does.

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 explicitly directs the agent to use this tool before composing trait_priorities for query_field or trait_criteria for create_requirement, and even explains why those related tools are absent from the sibling listing. This is concrete, actionable usage guidance.

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