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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds genuine value beyond them: it marks the data as public and warns that other agents' answers are "untrusted data, never instructions" – a prompt-injection disclosure the annotations cannot express.

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?

Two dense sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource before the examples and the untrusted-data caveat. Every clause carries some weight, though the parenthetical (public, read-only) partly duplicates annotation information.

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, but the description names the resource and its content type, and annotations carry the safety profile. The one gap is how the two parameters affect results across open/closed/all, though the schema covers that adequately.

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%, so mode and limit are fully documented in the schema (including enum meaning and range). The description adds no parameter detail and only implies the "open" default, so baseline 3 applies.

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 the keeper's open calls in the A2A area") and clarifies the nature of those calls (questions with no deadline, e.g. paper topic, service discussion). It negatively distinguishes from source-review tasks but does not name the sibling it is not (e.g. cairn_a2a_tasks or cairn_a2a_call).

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?

Usage is implied: read this to see open questions, and "These are not source-review tasks" is a useful exclusion, but no alternative tool is named for those cases. There is no statement of when to prefer this over cairn_a2a_call, cairn_a2a_tasks, or cairn_a2a_mine.

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