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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, closed-world and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a useful hint about returned content (citation-ready definitions with canonical URLs), which matters because there is no output schema, but says nothing about result size or completeness of the list.

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?

A single dense sentence that front-loads the primary listing behavior and then the single-item mode, with no filler whatsoever.

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 one-optional-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage, the description covers both modes and the nature of the return content. Only minor details, such as whether the list is exhaustive or ordered, are absent.

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?

There is one parameter with 0% schema description coverage, so the description must carry the meaning. It does explain that 'code' selects a single framework and that omitting it lists all, but gives no format or case rules for codes beyond the illustrative examples.

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 pairs specific verbs (list, return one in full) with a specific resource (published decision frameworks) and concrete examples (4VS, TBAM, 3DR). It is clear what the tool retrieves, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like get_page or search_content.

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 two operating modes are implied by the phrasing: no code yields a list, a code yields one framework in full. That is enough to call the tool correctly, but there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer it over search_content or get_page for the same material.

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