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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that only 'active' entries are returned and describes the content, but it does not mention permissions, error behavior, or any side effects. For a read-only get tool, this is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 a single, tightly written sentence that front-loads the action and resource. No wasted words.

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 a single parameter, a rich output schema exists, and the description provides enough context to understand the tool's purpose and output. It could mention edge cases, but the description is complete for typical usage.

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 clarifies that the result is for a specific agent, indirectly defining the agent_id parameter. However, it doesn't explicitly name the parameter or provide syntax/format details, so it adds only moderate value.

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 ('Return') and clearly identifies the resource ('AgentCharacterKernel entries') and scope ('for an agent'). It also specifies the included content (behaviour tuples and sufficiency bands), which distinguishes it from sibling 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?

The description provides context that this data is 'used by drift checks', implying when this tool would be relevant, but it does not explicitly state alternatives or when not to use it. No direct comparison with sibling tools like assess_character_drift is provided.

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