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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, closed-world, non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real interpretive context beyond that: false-discovery control for multiplicity, coverage confounds flagged as artifacts rather than findings, and explicit no-argument behavior. It stops short of describing the verdict's shape or any latency/caching behavior, keeping it at a 4.

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 follows with routing and scope in three tight sentences; every clause carries decision-relevant information. Some statistical jargon ('multiplicity paid for', 'coverage confounds') is dense but purposeful rather than filler.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must signal the return nature, and it does by describing an FDR-controlled verdict with confounds flagged as artifacts. Combined with annotations covering the safety profile and the explicit sibling routing, an agent has enough to call it correctly, though the exact verdict structure remains implicit.

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 the baseline is 4, and the description confirms this with 'Takes no arguments', removing any ambiguity about whether scope/date filters exist. There is no further parameter meaning to add.

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 ('Judge whether anything is happening') and resource ('Chinese censorship', 'across every signal at once'), and the title/description pair distinguishes it from the per-signal siblings. An agent can identify this as the aggregate verdict tool 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?

Explicitly says 'Use this instead of fetching signals individually', then sequences the workflow ('then use get_signal to drill into whichever signal moved'). The scope note also names the specific eval-side signals ('eval-registry', 'eval-assurance', 'refusal-drift') to route elsewhere, so alternatives and exclusions are both covered.

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