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

Annotations already establish the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description's value-add is the disclosure that this is the mandatory first call and an enumeration of what the response contains. With no output schema, spelling out the returned vocabulary is meaningful behavioral context. It omits any note on size, caching, or whether the returned flags are defaults vs. configured values.

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 sentences, with the imperative 'Call first' front-loaded before the payload inventory. The dense enumeration is efficient rather than padded, and nothing could be cut without losing information.

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-required-param discovery tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, ordering, and return contents while annotations cover safety. Minor gap: it never states that the result is static reference data the agent can reuse rather than re-fetch, which would help an agent avoid redundant calls.

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% and the single 'lang' enum parameter is fully documented in the schema (including its 'default en' note), so the schema already carries the burden. The description says nothing about the lang parameter or its effect on the returned content, leaving it at the baseline for full schema coverage.

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 exact resource set returned: context dimensions, flags (with defaults and rule counts), stages, gates, evidence states and levels, gate outcome precedence, and the suggested workflow. That is far more specific than a generic 'get context' and lets an agent predict the payload. It does not, however, contrast itself against any sibling like when_to_use or explain_node.

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?

'Call first' gives an explicit ordering instruction that positions this as the bootstrap/discovery step before other tools, which is genuine when-to-use guidance. It stops short of naming alternatives or stating when this call is unnecessary, so it is clear context without exclusions.

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