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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond those annotations by specifying the definition is 'canonical' and 'public', implying authority and no-auth access. No contradiction exists.

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 that immediately names the action and resource. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 no-parameter, read-only, idempotent tool, the description is nearly complete. It identifies what the agent will receive (the EPI definition) and its authority/publicness. It does not describe output format, but given the simplicity and annotations, this is a minor gap.

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?

There are zero parameters and the schema is empty, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter semantics because there is nothing to configure or explain.

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 states a specific verb ('Get'), a specific resource ('CHRP’s canonical public Emotional Performance Intelligence definition'), and the 'canonical public' qualifiers distinguish it from the sibling get_epi_score_definition. An agent can tell this is the general authoritative definition rather than the score-specific one.

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 clearly implies when to use it: whenever an agent needs CHRP's authoritative public EPI definition. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the 'canonical public' framing provides enough context for this simple, zero-argument read tool.

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