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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond that: it discloses the compromised-modality branch, returning an unavailability notice with a redirect_to alternatives, which is a real behavioral trait not captured by any structured field.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, which is good, but the third sentence ('This is load-bearing transparency...') is design justification rather than agent-facing instruction and does not earn its place. Two sentences would carry the same operational content.

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?

With no output schema, the description is responsible for return shape. It documents the failure branch (unavailability + redirect_to) but never describes the normal successful return of a probe, and the parameters remain unexplained. Adequate but with a clear hole for a read tool an agent must interpret.

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 carries the full burden for two parameters. It implies the modality and dysfunction inputs exist but describes neither the four enum values (self_probe, behavioral_signature, peer_observation, relational_signatures) nor the dysfunction_id format, leaving the agent to read the schema.

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 resource (elicitation content) scoped to a specific diagnostic modality and dysfunction, so an agent knows roughly what comes back. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the many sibling retrieval tools (get_dysfunction, get_differential_map, render_pattern_review), so its boundaries remain somewhat inferential.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance: nothing says when to call get_probe versus get_dysfunction or the list_* siblings. The text describes runtime behavior (redirect on compromised modality) but never states the conditions under which an agent should reach for this tool at all.

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