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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the credit cost and refund rule for unreachable targets, the security handling of the target auth_token ('held in memory only, never stored'), and the return shape (audit_id + access_token). These are non-obvious, high-value behavioral facts an agent could not infer from the schema.

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?

Front-loads the core action and mechanism, then layers cost, constraints, security, and return values. Every sentence carries information, though the description is dense and packs several distinct concerns without visual separation.

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 cost-incurring creation tool with no output schema and a nested weights object, the description covers the essential gaps: what it produces, cost/failure behavior, security handling, and the required follow-up call. Minor omissions remain around the battery-selection and teleology-name parameters.

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% across 7 parameters, so the description must compensate. It explains the critical constraint on teleology_weights ('must sum to 1.0 and exactly match the battery's objectives') and clarifies api_key and target_auth_token handling, but leaves target_endpoint, teleology_name, teleology_statement, and the battery_id default of 'core-v1' unexplained.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Create a psyche audit against a target agent endpoint') and then explains the mechanism — dilemma battery, self-reports, three-source mirror. This lets an agent distinguish it from remirror_get_report (polling) and remirror_list_batteries without opening any schema.

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?

Gives clear operating context: it costs $79.00 in prepaid credits, failed audits are refunded, and the workflow routes onward explicitly ('poll remirror_get_report for the report'). It does not state when this tool should be avoided or how it relates to remirror_list_batteries, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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