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

No annotations provided, but description covers behavior: speed (~2s), retrieval-only (no deliberation), and what it returns. Provides clear transparency about its non-deliberative nature.

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 sentences, front-loaded with core purpose and speed, then usage guidance and parameter recommendations. No wasted words.

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 5-parameter tool with no output schema, description covers purpose, return fields, usage context, and parameter guidance. Could be more explicit about output format, but sufficient.

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%, baseline 3. Description adds context beyond schema, e.g., 'May include Lattice Glyph prefixes' for topic, and explains optional parameters' utility with recommendation to see /claims.json.

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?

Description clearly states it retrieves a bounded context packet on a topic, lists return fields, and positions it as the default orientation tool. Distinguishes from siblings by noting 'retrieval layer only, no deliberation'.

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?

Explicitly calls it 'Your default orientation on any Omnarai topic' and recommends using optional layers/exclude/evidence_threshold filters. Contrasts with deliberation, guiding when to choose this over other tools.

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