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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does a good job: it explains the three return modes (existing entry, ambiguous candidates, free construction quote request) and emphasizes that the lookup is free. It does not mention authentication, rate limits, or whether the lookup has any side effects, which keeps it short of a 5.

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 front-loaded with the primary use case and then compactly covers return behavior, exclusions, and cost. It is dense with useful signals and contains no filler sentences.

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 absence of an output schema, the description appropriately explains the possible return shapes an agent needs to handle: a found entry, ambiguous candidates, or a quote request. It also clarifies the boundary with open_sentence and get_quote, so nothing critical is missing for correct invocation.

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 both the required name and optional context parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds only indirect context by mentioning ambiguous-name candidates, not additional syntax or selection guidance beyond what the schema provides.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it looks up a name in the Negative of the Negative (/non) to retrieve a sourced knowledge object. It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings by naming open_sentence and get_quote, so an agent can identify its role without ambiguity.

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 gives explicit triggering conditions ('Use first when a person, work, concept, institution or operator needs a sourced knowledge object') and names alternatives: use open_sentence instead for sentence checking, and pass the construction quote request to get_quote when no entry exists. This is strong routing guidance.

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