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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, and the description adds genuinely new constraints: never emits unreviewed gemstones, costly rituals or initiation-only mantras, does not claim causality, and may return no-remedy-needed. These are meaningful safety disclosures not derivable from annotations.

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 tight sentences with the core purpose and the key safety guarantees front-loaded; little waste. Minor jargon overlap with the sibling build_claim_evidence_ledger is unexplained but compact.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the safety envelope is covered. However, for a 10-parameter tool with a nested required preferences object and a coordinate/location anyOf, the absence of any parameter or input-construction guidance leaves the definition short of complete.

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?

With 10 parameters and only 30% schema description coverage, the description needs to compensate, but it mentions only "user preferences" generically. Nothing explains the place-vs-coordinates anyOf, the topic enum, the preferences sub-object fields (beliefMode, maximumBurden, maximumCost), or timezone handling.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource: "Builds an optional practice protocol from the evidence ledger and user preferences." That is enough to distinguish it from analyze_remedies and the analyze_* family, though it never explicitly names a sibling as the alternative.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this versus analyze_remedies, nor any prerequisites (e.g. that an evidence ledger must exist first). The only usage-adjacent signal is "optional" and the no-remedy-needed outcome, which is a behavior, not routing guidance.

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