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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds some scoping context ('public', 'authority exclusions') but does not describe response behavior, pagination, rate limits, or what the returned surfaces actually contain. 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 is a single sentence with no filler and is front-loaded with the verb and target. However, the dense terminology ('machine-discovery surfaces', 'evidence boundaries') could be unpacked without adding significant length.

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 zero input parameters and rich read-only annotations, the description is mostly adequate for invoking the tool. However, with no output schema present, it should more clearly explain what each returned category contains; the current phrasing is high-level and somewhat ambiguous.

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 tool has zero parameters and schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline of 4 applies. The description rightly does not need to explain parameters, and it does not add any parameter-specific meaning.

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 concrete verb ('Return') and names a specific resource ('MyDankTank public machine-discovery surfaces, evidence boundaries, and explicit authority exclusions'). It is not a tautology and is reasonably distinguishable from siblings like get_public_policies or search_catalog_education, though the noun phrases are jargon-heavy and could be clearer.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings. It does not mention alternatives, conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions, so an agent must infer the appropriate context from the name alone.

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