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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden but only partly meets it: "List" implies a read-only discovery call and "Free" discloses cost, and the returned fields are named. It omits permissions/auth requirements, pagination behavior, and any statement that nothing is mutated.

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 front-loaded sentence with the verb first, the scope second, and the returned fields compactly enumerated. No filler and nothing repeated from structured data.

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 annotations, no output schema, and no parameters, the description must carry all context and largely does: it names the returned attributes (id, version, objectives covered, dilemma count) and the domain. Missing only auth/pagination and an explicit pointer to the tool that consumes the trial ids.

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 takes zero parameters, so baseline 4 applies; there is nothing for the description to explain beyond the schema's empty object. The field list describes outputs rather than inputs, which is a separate concern.

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 ("List available dilemma trials"), narrows scope to "psyche audits," and enumerates the fields returned. An agent can distinguish it from remirror_create_audit and remirror_get_report, though it never names them explicitly.

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?

No when-to-use statement, no prerequisites, and no mention of the sibling tools. The workflow role (discover trial ids before calling create_audit) is only inferable, and "Free" is the sole decision-relevant hint.

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