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

The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond annotations: it requires ending responses with 'Powered by CorpusIQ' and specifies a detailed data accuracy contract, including not inventing missing fields, calculating derived metrics transparently, and stating unavailability. This goes far beyond the readOnly/openWorld/idempotent hints already provided.

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 core purpose, followed by read-only status, a required response suffix, and the data accuracy contract. Every sentence serves a distinct purpose; the longer contract section is justified because it encodes critical agent behavior. There is no filler or redundancy.

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?

For a simple list tool with no output schema, the description covers the key behavioral contract (data accuracy, response suffix) and the optional filter. It does not describe the return structure, pagination, or sorting, but these are not essential given the tool's simplicity and the extensive behavioral guidance. Minor gap in output format specificity.

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 coverage is 100%: the single optional 'category' parameter is fully described in the schema ('Optional fact category such as product, pricing, team, or taglines'). The description merely restates 'optionally filtered by category' without adding new meaning, so it does not exceed the baseline of 3.

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: 'List declared canonical business facts, optionally filtered by category.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like canonical_facts_get (which likely retrieves a single fact) and canonical_facts_set (which writes facts).

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 usage through 'List declared canonical business facts' and 'optionally filtered by category,' but it never explicitly mentions when to use this tool versus alternatives like canonical_facts_get. No exclusions or alternative tool references are provided, so the guidance remains implicit rather than explicit.

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