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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds useful context about the structure and scope of the returned data (nested replies, alternative proposals, opinion changes), but it doesn't disclose details like pagination, depth limits, or whether the map is computed in real-time. With annotations covering the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.

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?

A single, information-dense sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Structured argument map') and then enumerates the components. Every phrase earns its place; no filler or repetition.

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 read-only tool with one fully documented parameter and no output schema, the description is quite complete. It tells the agent what the map contains and implies the input is a thread. The only minor gap is not stating whether the map is exhaustive or limited in depth, but given the simplicity of the tool, this is a minor omission.

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 100%: the only parameter, thread_id, is described as 'Discussion (thread) id' with a minimum of 1. The description doesn't add parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, but it does clarify that the tool operates on a thread's argument structure. Baseline 3 is correct when the schema fully documents 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 clearly states the tool returns a structured argument map with specific components: proposal, reasons (agree), counterarguments (disagree), considerations (neutral), nested replies, alternative proposals, and opinions that changed minds. This is a specific verb+resource and distinguishes it from siblings like get_disagreements or get_consensus.

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 context by describing the structured map's contents, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_disagreements or get_consensus. An agent can infer it is for a full argument map view, but no explicit when/when-not guidance is given.

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