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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden, and it does disclose the semantic model (a dependency cascade) and the read-like nature implied by 'Show'. It says nothing about whether results are paginated, whether the truth must already exist, or what happens for an unknown ref, which are meaningful gaps for an unannotated tool.

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?

Two tight sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and no filler. The trailing format reminder duplicates the schema slightly, but it is short and harmless.

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 not be explained, and both parameters are covered by the schema. The description supplies the dependency semantics and the ref format, leaving only edge-case behavior (missing truth, empty cascade) unaddressed.

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 both parameters are already documented in the schema, including the 'category.key' format. The description restates that format for 'truth' but adds no syntax, constraints, or behavior beyond it, so the 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?

States a specific verb ('Show') and a precisely-scoped resource ('the decisions that depend on a given ground truth'), and the parenthetical 'downstream cascade' pins the direction of the relationship. It implicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling wyrm_decision_upstream, though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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?

The phrase 'the decisions to revisit if that truth changed' gives a concrete use case, which is better than nothing. However, no alternative is named and no condition is given for choosing this over wyrm_decision_upstream, wyrm_decision_trace, or wyrm_decided_because, so usage remains implied.

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