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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds workflow constraints (tag sequence, status condition) and behavioral rules (e.g., 'Do NOT output wisdom until status='WISDOM_READY''), which go beyond annotations without contradicting them.

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 description is front-loaded with the purpose and workflow, then lists tags efficiently. It uses a clear structure with sections for workflow and tag categories. Every sentence adds value, though it could be slightly more concise by removing redundant examples.

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?

Given the complexity (8 parameters, enums, output schema), the description covers all essential aspects: purpose, workflow, tag ordering, and the status condition. The presence of an output schema means return values do not need to be detailed in the description.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, listing all parameters with descriptions. The description adds value by grouping tags into categories (process, meta-cognitive, non-dual, skillful-means) and explaining the workflow order (e.g., 'begin' must come first).

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 description clearly defines it as a 'Contemplative reasoning tool' with specific use cases: 'complex problems needing multi-perspective understanding, contradictions requiring integration, or questions holding their own wisdom.' It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'lotuswisdom_summary' by focusing on reasoning rather than summarization.

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?

Explicit instructions are provided: 'Always start with tag='begin'... Then continue with contemplation tags. Do NOT output wisdom until status='WISDOM_READY'.' The description states when to use it (complex problems) but does not explicitly state when not to use it, though the context implies simpler problems are not suitable.

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