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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds value by disclosing that only names and provenance are returned, no passages, and by specifying the returned fields (title, author, library_id, guide URL). This shapes expectations beyond the read-only hint and is helpful for downstream processing.

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 two sentences, with the purpose stated up front and the key limitation (no passages) at the end. No filler, no redundancy, and every clause contributes to understanding the tool's scope and constraints.

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?

With a modest all-optional parameter set fully documented in schema and an output schema present, the coverage is sufficient for correct invocation. The description states the essential scope (disagreement names, pole books, URL), the filtering dimensions, and the exclusion of passages. It does not address alternative tool selection, but that gap belongs to usage guidelines rather than completeness.

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%, and each parameter already has a useful schema description (e.g., slug notes that persona/category are ignored when set). The description merely repeats 'Filter by slug, persona, or category' without adding new meaning. This meets the baseline for full schema coverage but does not augment 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 a pointed question ('Where does the field disagree?') and then enumerates the exact deliverable: cross-book tension names, the books on each pole with title/author/library_id, and the guide URL. It also names the filter dimensions and explicitly excludes passages, making it clearly distinct from sibling list tools like list_conditions or list_taxonomy.

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 implies its use by stating it returns disagreements and can be filtered, but it does not explicitly compare against alternatives or state when not to use it. The 'no passages' note is a limitation, but it is not framed as a directive to choose search_guides or another sibling. An agent choosing between this and list_conditions or list_taxonomy gets no direct routing signal beyond the title.

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