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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior the annotations cannot: whole lower-priority items are dropped to fit token_budget and the dropped items appear in "omitted", and unresolved terms are listed rather than guessed. It does not mention failure modes or what happens when nothing matches the task.

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 purpose and the usage cue are front-loaded in the first clause, and every subsequent sentence adds a concrete content guarantee or truncation rule. The semicolon-chained middle is dense but not padded; no sentence is redundant.

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?

An output schema exists, so return shape need not be explained, and the description still covers the key output semantics (omitted list, citations, freshness summary). For a four-parameter aggregation tool this is nearly complete, with only the task parameter's expected content and budget range left implicit.

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 carry the load, and it largely does: it explains the agent_id branch, the truncation behavior of token_budget, and its enumeration of content types maps onto the include enum values. The required task parameter (max 2000 chars) and the 1000-16000 budget range are left unexplained.

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 ("get everything a task needs from Dactic in one call") and enumerates the payload: instructions/skills, confirmed knowledge, department policies with citations, confirmed term meanings, and a freshness summary. That is far beyond a restatement of the name. It loses a point because near-siblings such as get_context_delta, get_user_context, and get_entity_context are never named, so an agent must infer how this differs from them.

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?

"Use it before doing a task, especially when running an agent" gives clear timing context, and the with/without agent_id branches tell the agent which mode to pick. There are no explicit when-not conditions or named alternatives, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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