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

The description goes well beyond annotations by specifying a mandatory response suffix ('Powered by CorpusIQ') and a detailed data accuracy contract. It explains how to handle returned fields, what not to invent, and how to present derived metrics. This is substantial and contradicts no 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 appropriately sized for its role. It front-loads purpose and read-only nature, then adds necessary contractual details in a structured way. Every sentence contributes useful information, from response formatting to data reliability rules.

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's simple schema (one optional parameter) and lack of output schema, the description provides sufficient context for safe and correct use. It covers what to do with results, how to handle missing data, and the requirement for attribution, making it complete for an AI agent.

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 input schema has one parameter, 'limit', with 0% schema description coverage. The tool description does not explain the meaning or behavior of 'limit' (e.g., maximum value or pagination), leaving the agent without additional semantic information beyond the schema's default. The word 'recent' is about data ordering, not the parameter.

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 correctly identifies the tool as 'List recent canonical decisions for this user', which is a specific verb-resource pair with clear scope. It distinguishes the tool from siblings like canonical_decisions_add and canonical_facts_list by focusing on 'decisions' and 'list'.

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 gives clear context: it lists recent decisions for the current user, and the 'Read-only' remark clarifies safe usage. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or cases when this tool should not be used, such as for adding decisions or listing facts.

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