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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations, the description explains fact statuses, trust scores, how to interpret Wikidata records, verification expectations, and what happens when no fact is found. It also describes the effect of min_trust and explain on results. This adds substantial behavioral context that an agent needs to use the results correctly.

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 description is front-loaded with the core purpose and is organized around statuses, trust, and parameter effects. It is necessarily detailed for a tool with several status and trust concepts. Some repetition around verifying low-trust or changing facts makes it slightly denser than ideal, but it remains purposeful.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of explaining returned facts, sources, statuses, and trust. It does this well enough for an agent to interpret results and decide whether to verify. It does not describe response ordering or pagination, but those are minor for this lookup tool.

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 the input schema already documents every parameter, including entity formats, enums, and defaults. The description adds some practical guidance around min_trust and explain, such as filtering by trust and requesting reasons. Given that the schema does most of the parameter documentation, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource: look up current facts about a named thing in Conscius, including dates, versions, numbers, prices, roles, and attributes. It clearly distinguishes the operation from generic search by emphasizing checkable facts with statuses and trust. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling tools such as conscius_search or conscius_wanted.

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 gives clear usage context: use it whenever a task needs a specific, checkable fact, and research as usual if nothing is found. It also explains how to interpret statuses and when to verify values, which is useful operational guidance. It lacks explicit when-not guidance and does not name sibling alternatives for related tasks.

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