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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds valuable behavioral context about the default synthesis projection ("multidimensional view that holds all lenses in superposition") and how passing a single-lens value changes the output. No contradictions with annotations.

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 three sentences, each earning its place: the first states the core action, the second explains the default behavior, and the third provides usage guidance. It is front-loaded and free of redundant content, 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 comprehensive input schema, output schema, and annotations, the description covers the essential aspects: the purpose, the default vs. single-lens behavior, and the stakeholder contexts. It does not need to explain return values (output schema exists) or provide more detail on discovery (the schema already references list_places). This is a complete picture for actionable use.

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?

The schema provides thorough documentation for both slug and lens, including the enum, default, and alias routing (100% coverage). The description goes beyond the schema by explaining the functional impact of the lens parameter in terms of user stakes (e.g., developer, investor), which helps an agent understand when to choose a specific lens.

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 specific verb and resource: "Return the dossier projection for a city, in the requested cognitive lens." This clearly identifies the tool's function and differentiates it from sibling describe tools by focusing on cities and the lens concept.

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 default synthesis projection versus a single-lens request, stating it is "useful when the agent is acting on behalf of a user with a specific stake" and listing examples. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool relative to siblings.

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