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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral value beyond that: it enumerates the returned content categories and explicitly frames the output as non-authoritative, which affects how an agent should weigh results. Return volume, ranking, or pagination behavior is not described.

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 the trigger condition, then the payload, then the interpretation caveat. No filler and every clause carries information.

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 only two optional parameters, a read-only annotation profile, and no output schema, the description supplies what's missing by describing the nature of the returned content and its advisory status. Nothing an agent needs in order to call this correctly is absent.

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 50%: 'topic' is well documented in the schema including the omit-for-all behavior, while 'limit' is self-explanatory via default and min/max bounds. The description adds nothing about either parameter, so the baseline 3 applies — the schema, not the prose, carries parameter meaning.

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 ('read') and a concrete resource set — principles, boundaries, conduct reports, and humans open to being asked — so the agent knows exactly what comes back. It never contrasts itself with siblings like search_humans or report_interaction, which overlap on the 'humans' surface, so differentiation is left implicit.

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?

Gives a clear triggering condition: consult before acting when the ethical situation is uncertain. It also sets a decision rule — treat output as advisory context for judgment, not a rulebook. It stops short of naming alternatives or stating when not to call it.

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