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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose meaningful behavior: a positive result implies consent is already given and prescribes the next call. It does not describe the return shape (e.g., what an uninstalled result looks like) or whether the call has side effects, leaving gaps for a zero-annotation 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?

It is short with no wasted prose, and the actionable routing is front-loaded after the status question. But the phrasing is overly telegraphic ("then turn every turn"), trading clarity for brevity rather than achieving genuine conciseness.

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 zero-param, no-output-schema status tool, the description should convey what it returns and what to do next; it gestures at both but cryptically. It is minimally sufficient but not complete for an agent to confidently interpret a negative (not-installed) result.

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 and the schema is empty with full coverage, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 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 is a telegraphic fragment ("Installed?") that largely restates the name constitution_status rather than stating a specific verb+resource. An agent can infer it checks installation state, but the definition never plainly says what the tool does or distinguishes it from the sibling constitution_get.

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?

It does provide workflow routing after a positive result ("next_action=step_zero(page=1), then turn every turn"), which is genuine usage guidance. However, it never addresses when to call this versus constitution_get or constitution_install, so the when-to-use decision against siblings is left to inference.

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