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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, but the description adds meaningful behavioral context: it returns 'metadata, dates and rights only' and explicitly excludes 'shared score or execution authority'. This goes beyond the structured hints and clarifies what the tool does not do.

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 two sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the constraint about metadata-only follows immediately. Every word earns its place.

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 read-only tool with no output schema and three optional parameters, the description gives a high-level outcome (metadata/dates/rights) but omits parameter semantics and return shape (e.g., list vs. object, pagination behavior). It is adequate for basic understanding but not fully complete for an agent to call it without further schema 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 description coverage is 0%, and the description provides no information about the three parameters (limit, topic, offset). It does not explain what 'topic' enum values mean, how pagination via limit/offset behaves, or any parameter constraints. The description completely fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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 uses a specific verb ('discovery') and names distinct resources ('Seiche funding, LiquiLens institutions, Palimpsest evidence'), and it explicitly limits scope to 'metadata, dates and rights only'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that likely provide scores or execution authority.

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 implies usage through its scoped purpose and the 'metadata only' caveat, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or name any sibling alternatives. The boundary is present but no direct when-to-use guidance is given.

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