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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: it specifies the output scope ('Cites only') and explicitly states what the tool does not do (emitting verdicts). This helps the agent set expectations without relying solely on structured data.

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 entire description is two sentences with zero filler. It front-loads the core action and scope in the first sentence and adds the critical limitation in the second. Every word contributes to an agent's understanding.

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 simple two-parameter read-only tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It states what is retrieved, the input type, and the key boundary (no verdicts). The snapshot parameter is fully explained in the schema, so no additional description is required.

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 'query' and 'snapshot' are already well-documented. The description loosely restates the query's purpose ('spec section or behavior') but does not add new parameter-level detail. Baseline 3 applies because the schema carries the meaning.

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 begins with a specific verb and resource ('Retrieve spec, Core source, and GitHub cites') and immediately distinguishes this tool from siblings by adding 'Cites only. Does not emit aligned/gap/divergence verdicts.' This makes it clear what the tool produces and what it deliberately does not, separating it from analysis/verdict tools like assess_argument or verify_claim.

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 description provides clear context for when to use the tool: to retrieve cites for a spec section or behavior. It also states a key exclusion ('Does not emit aligned/gap/divergence verdicts'), guiding the agent away from using it for verdicts. It does not name specific sibling alternatives, but the exclusion is strong enough for an agent to make the right choice.

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