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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description discloses important behavioral details: the profile parameter annotates rather than filters, all sections are returned for cross-profile comparisons, and the server does not request sensitive notes. This adds significant transparency about the tool's operation and data handling.

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 four sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, then lists payload components, clarifies a key parameter behavior, and explains privacy. Every sentence adds value, though the sentence about payload contents is a bit dense.

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's complexity, the description covers purpose, payload contents, parameter nuance, and privacy, despite no output schema. It provides enough information for an agent to understand what to expect and how to use the tool effectively.

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 baseline is 3. The description reiterates the profile parameter's annotate-not-filter behavior, which the schema already documents, and adds no new syntax or format details for other parameters. It does not compensate beyond the schema.

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 a specific action ('Load Lenny Zeltser's CTI writing context for local analysis') and enumerates the payload contents (section guidance, completeness criteria, frameworks, attribution signals, etc.). It distinguishes itself from sibling get_* tools by emphasizing comprehensive context loading and local analysis.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool—when local analysis is needed and privacy matters ('never requests your campaign or threat-intel notes'). However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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