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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Fresh, rights-aware' hints at filtering behavior but does not explain what 'fresh' means, whether stale items are included by default, how capability_code affects results, or what the output looks like. The description is silent on pagination, error conditions, or side effects. This is a significant gap for a find operation.

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 a single, concise sentence with no waste, and the key qualifiers are front-loaded. However, the brevity comes at the cost of missing critical usage and parameter information, so it is under-specified rather than efficiently complete.

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 no output schema, no annotations, and two parameters with zero schema description, the description is woefully incomplete. It does not explain what an 'intelligence resource' is, how to use capability_code, what include_stale controls, or what the response contains. An agent would have to guess at essential details to invoke this tool correctly.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does not mention either parameter (include_stale or capability_code) or provide any meaning beyond their names. The 'fresh' and 'rights-aware' phrasing is too vague to map to specific parameters. The description adds no actionable parameter semantics.

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 the tool finds 'intelligence resources' from a 'generalized Resource Index' with qualifiers 'fresh, rights-aware'. This gives a specific verb, resource, and selection criteria. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling find tools like me_find_assets or me_find_capability, relying on the term 'intelligence resources' to imply differentiation.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as me_find_assets, me_discover, or me_observe. The description does not state prerequisites, exclusions, or scenarios where this is preferred. The only hint is the 'intelligence resources' phrasing, which is implicit.

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