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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds substantial behavioral context: returns citation-stable claims, four-clock freshness, and a structured record_status block that 'prevents agents from summarizing agenda intent as completed action.' This goes beyond annotation and provides meaningful operational nuance.

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 and information-rich, front-loaded with the main purpose and packed with specific return fields and caveats. Every sentence contributes value without fluff, making it appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 and the presence of an output schema, the description still covers return structure, semantic safeguards, and usage context. It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly, including the crucial caveat about record_status preventing premature summarization.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents both parameters, including lens aliases and fallback behavior. The description adds marginal context (mentioning the lens enum similarity and pairing with list_meetings) but does not substantially enrich parameter understanding 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 the tool returns 'the full dossier projection for a meeting reading' in a requested cognitive lens, which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like describe_place and describe_corridor by explicitly referencing the shared lens enum and the meeting-specific context.

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 gives a clear use case ('Use to ground citations in a specific meeting's reading') and pairs with discovery tools (list_meetings or meeting_index). It lacks an explicit 'when not to use' but implies meeting-specific usage, which is enough given sibling context.

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