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

Without annotations, the description carries the burden. It clearly identifies this as a read operation ('ONE read'), clarifies it reads live flags rather than static docs, and lists exactly what information it returns. It does not cover auth requirements or rate limits, but this is sufficient for a read-only posture check.

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?

Dense but efficient, every clause adds specific value (privacy items, feature modes, quota path). It's a single sentence but well-structured and front-loaded.

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 tool with no output schema, the description thoroughly enumerates the return contents: private items, public items, live modes, and quota guidance. Combined with usage guidance, this is complete.

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 schema already documents chainId with 100% coverage, so the description adds little beyond noting the chain context. Baseline 3 applies.

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 states this is a read tool that reports privacy posture for a chain and lane, with specific details about private vs public data, live feature modes, and quota improvement. It distinguishes itself from siblings by its specific focus on privacy.

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 instructs to 'Call it first when planning,' giving clear timing guidance. It also contrasts with a 'brochure' by noting it reads live flags, but does not name alternative tools for comparison.

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