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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds two useful behavioral notes: the data is citable and failures/wounded strategies are first-class (i.e., do not filter them out), but it says nothing about freshness, size, or pagination beyond the static JSON pointer.

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?

Three short clauses, front-loaded with the endpoint path and free of padding. 'Failures and wounded strategies are first-class' is slightly idiomatic, but the overall size is proportionate to a zero-argument fetch.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and with no parameters and full annotation coverage the remaining burden is small. The endpoint path plus the 'do not invent triage numbers' constraint covers what an agent needs to call it correctly, though a hint on data freshness would round it out.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a no-argument tool applies. No param guidance is needed and none is missing.

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 (a Strategy Hospital snapshot served from /facts/strategy-hospital.json) and that it is citable, so the agent knows roughly what it retrieves. However, it does not differentiate this from neighboring fact/snapshot tools such as get_world_arena_facts, get_public_proofs, or arena_snapshot, and the verb is only implied.

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?

'Do not invent triage numbers' gives one constraint but no when-to-use context, no prerequisites, and no comparison against any of the ~40 sibling tools. An agent cannot tell from this text when this snapshot is the right source versus the arena or proof endpoints.

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