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

Annotations already disclose that this is a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, non-open-world operation. The description adds some useful context by saying the counts are 'live' and listing what the node detail includes, but it does not describe return format, pagination, or other behavioral traits beyond that.

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 two sentences, front-loads the resource, and wastes no words. The DNA metaphor slightly reduces immediate clarity, but the structure is efficient and appropriately sized.

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 no output schema, the description should carry more of the burden of explaining what the tool returns. It does mention the high-level shape and the node-detail fields, but does not fully explain the overview response or how live counts are presented, leaving an agent with only partial understanding.

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 baseline would be 3, but the description earns a higher score by explaining what passing `node` actually returns—covenant, stakeholder and implementation rules—which is meaningful semantic detail beyond the schema's 'One node's detail (uncapped).'

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 names the resource ('Mzizi DNA double helix — nodes, rungs and strands') and adds 'live counts', but the DNA metaphor is opaque and does not plainly explain what the architecture data actually contains. It does clarify that passing `node` returns covenant, stakeholder and implementation rules, but the overall purpose remains vague rather than specific.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings such as `mzizi_get_component`, `mzizi_get_doctrine`, or `mzizi_get_skills`. The only usage instruction is 'Pass `node` for one node's covenant...', which explains a parameter mode rather than tool selection.

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