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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It explains the output contents of each mode, the free-versus-full tier differences, and the important constraint that readouts are descriptive and 'never causal inference.' It does not mention pagination, rate limits, or explicit side-effect statements, but the query nature and mode-specific output lists make behavior reasonably transparent.

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 dense but every clause earns its place: mode definitions, sibling differentiation, output scope, tier behavior, and a fallback. It front-loads the core purpose and then methodically walks through modes without 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?

Given there is no output schema and no annotations, this description is unusually complete: it defines all modes, their outputs, the distinction from get_actors, data tier implications, and the no causal inference guarantee. An agent has enough information to select and invoke the tool correctly for any of the three modes.

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?

Although the schema covers parameter descriptions 100%, the tool description adds essential semantics: the requirement to pass exactly one of dimension, actors, or watch:true, example values, and what each parameter returns. It also clarifies that omitting all three yields a usage hint, which is not inferable from the schema alone.

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 precise verb and object: 'Query the Sovereign Capability Profile (SCP) register by pivoting and comparing.' It names the sibling tool get_actors and explicitly contrasts the two, so an agent can immediately identify what this tool uniquely 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?

It states when to use each of the three invocation modes and explicitly excludes get_actors as the place where energy_context is served, with 'it is not returned here.' It also tells the agent to omit all three parameters for a usage hint, leaving no ambiguity about how to invoke the tool.

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