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

Despite strong annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint), the description adds meaningful behavioral context: anonymization, never returning wallet/cohort keys, aggregate historical data, staleness, descriptive-only nature, and 'never a recommendation or a promise of results.' It also clarifies the read-only nature with 'free read.' No contradiction 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 opens with a compact one-line summary, then provides return details, filters, privacy guarantees, and workflow context in a logical order. Every sentence adds value; no filler or repetition.

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?

It covers what the tool returns, how to filter, privacy behavior, and when to use it. The output schema presumably covers structured return values, so that is not required. Minor gaps include the ordering criterion for 'ordered behaviour motifs' and the meaning of 'staleness,' but the description is still largely sufficient 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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains min_agents ('Filter with min_agents') and limit ('caps the result count (max 100)'), but leaves caller_id completely unexplained. This is a partial gap given the low schema coverage.

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 uses a specific verb ('Returns') and a concrete resource ('ordered behaviour motifs -- sequences of (regime, signal_key, action, outcome_sign) steps'). It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling intelligence tools by emphasizing motifs that map to NO existing strategy type, so an agent can tell it apart from get_collective_insights, get_signals, and similar get_* tools.

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 explicitly frames usage as an INTELLIGENCE step before designing a new strategy ('see what the fleet is doing that no existing strategy type describes, before designing a new strategy'). It does not name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the workflow guidance is clear enough for selection.

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