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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable context: the pattern is a citable entity in the corpus's entity graph, and the DefinedTerm canonical home provides a stable reference for AI agents. It also explains the output nature (full dossier with many fields). No contradictions with annotations. The description adds enough behavioral color beyond the structured hints.

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 a single paragraph that is informative but somewhat dense, listing many fields in a run-on manner. It is front-loaded with the core action ('Return the full dossier'), but the enumeration of fields makes it longer than necessary. Every sentence earns its place, but the structure could be more concise (e.g., bullet points or shorter sentences). Not excessive, but could be improved.

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 returns a complex 'full dossier' and an output schema exists (though not shown), the description adequately covers what the dossier includes (exhibits, provenance, related entities, canonical surfaces) and the significance of the entity (citable, stable reference). It does not need to detail return values because the output schema handles that. The description is complete enough for an agent to decide when to call this tool, but it could mention the output schema's availability.

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% with a single parameter 'slug' that already has a descriptive comment ('The pattern slug... Use current_named_patterns to discover available slugs'). The tool description does not add any additional meaning or formatting details about the slug parameter beyond what the schema provides. The description focuses on the overall purpose rather than parameter semantics. With full schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description does not significantly raise it.

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 starts with 'Return the full dossier for a named pattern' which is a specific verb+resource combination. It enumerates the exact fields included (voxel_lead, signal_status, etc.) and clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like describe_corridor or describe_entity by focusing on pattern-specific data. The purpose is unambiguous and actionable.

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 provides a clear usage context: 'Use when an agent needs the structured pattern data to cite or analyze.' It also references the prerequisite tool current_named_patterns for discovering available slugs. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use this tool (e.g., if only a summary is needed) or name specific alternatives among the sibling tools, such as list_patterns for a listing. The guidance is good but not exhaustive.

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