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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the entire behavioral burden. It asserts 'deterministic', which is a genuine behavioral claim, but says nothing about what the tool returns, whether it mutates state, cost/latency, or how mode changes behavior.

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?

It is a single front-loaded sentence with no padding or repetition, which is structurally sound. However, the length is spent on undefined marketing jargon rather than substantive information, so brevity does not translate into usefulness.

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 an abstract description, an agent has little to work with. It cannot tell what the scaffold output looks like, what each mode yields, or why it should choose this over its three siblings, leaving major gaps for a tool whose output shape is entirely undefined.

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 100%, with clear per-parameter text and a documented enum for 'mode', so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides, which is the correct baseline of 3.

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?

It names a verb (retrieve) and a resource (a reasoning scaffold), so the general action is legible. But 'deterministic reasoning scaffold (Reasoning-Augmented Retrieval)' is proprietary jargon that never says concretely what comes back, and it draws no distinction from siblings like ejentum_graph or ejentum_fts_search.

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 gives no guidance on when to invoke this tool versus ejentum_domains, ejentum_fts_search, or ejentum_graph, nor any prerequisites or trigger conditions. The only implicit cue is the failure scenarios ('hallucinations, causal inversion'), which hint at intent but never frame a decision rule.

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