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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the nature and source of the heuristics but does not mention behavioral traits like pagination, rate limits, or authorization. The description adds value by explaining the content is 'cross-cutting safety principles' but lacks operational details.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, and every sentence adds value. No wasted words, and the structure is logical: purpose, source, filters, differentiation.

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 no output schema, the description explains the type of content (heuristics from production deployment) and available filters. It lacks explicit return format but provides sufficient context for an agent to understand the tool's purpose and usage. The sibling tool get_operational_heuristic likely provides details.

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 coverage is 100% with both parameters described. The description restates the filter options but does not add significant new meaning beyond the schema. For example, it mentions 'query (keyword search across titles and principles)' which is similar to the schema's description.

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 'List operational heuristics' with specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools by explicitly noting 'Separate from the normative pattern layer — different category of knowledge.'

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 clear context for use, including optional filters for suite_id and keyword search. It implies when to use this tool vs. pattern-related tools by stating it's a different category, but does not explicitly list when not to use or provide direct alternatives.

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