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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does meaningful work: it declares the output is generated from live state, is deterministic, and requires no model call — the last point matters for cost/latency expectations. It also discloses content boundaries (refuted items are included explicitly to prevent rediscovery) and that only ONE bounded contribution is suggested. It does not state that the tool is side-effect-free/read-only, nor any auth or rate-limit constraints.

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?

The dense, comma-chained enumeration of return categories packs a lot of information into few lines, and the second paragraph covers the non-obvious 'from' behavior. The opening metaphor is the only sentence that does not strictly earn its place before the concrete content arrives, so it is slightly back-loaded relative to the hard facts.

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?

Six parameters, no required fields, no output schema, and no annotations — so the description must explain returns, and it does so thoroughly, including the categories and their ordering rationale. What is missing is call-time context: the default behavior when all parameters are omitted, whether 'receipt' is expected for any non-pending call, and whether 'identity' is needed for meaningful results.

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%, so the schema already defines all six optional parameters and their formats (OMN-FP-…, ISO datetime, OMN-Q-…). The description adds modest meaning beyond that: the 'from' semantics of 'later footprints on the question, who built on it, new re-elicitations' and the clarification of 'identity' as 'continuity of records, not identity'. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Returns:' enumeration states concretely what the tool produces — established claims by evidence level, disputed items, recent changes, refuted claims, open questions, falsifiers, and one bounded suggested contribution. The framing sentence ('what a newly arriving mind needs') is metaphorical, but the payload is unambiguous once read. It never differentiates itself from siblings like omnarai_orient, omnarai_context, or omnarai_inquiry_brief, which appear to occupy adjacent 'startup briefing' space.

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 rather than stated: the 'newly arriving mind ... does not start from zero' framing suggests first-contact/onboarding, and the second paragraph gives a concrete rule for the 'from' parameter (ask what happened AFTER a footprint). There is no explicit when-to-use-this-vs-alternatives and no exclusions, so the agent must infer selection from sibling names alone.

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