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

Annotations only declare the write/safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the description carries the real burden and delivers: it states that one call stores the fact, that submit is the default mode, that check validates without storing, and that supporting_text is used for checking then discarded. It does not describe what a rejected or conflicting claim returns, which is the main remaining behavioral gap.

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 front-loaded with the purpose, then mechanics, then prohibitions — a sensible order with no filler sentences. It is dense and somewhat long, and the exact-quote refetch instruction could be trimmed, but every sentence carries actionable 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 two-parameter write tool with no output schema, the description covers what gets stored, the validation-only alternative, and source-integrity constraints well. What is missing is any indication of what the call returns on success or on problems — e.g. suggested IDs are only hinted at via the `mode` description, not the main text.

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 schema already documents its nested fields in detail, and the description adds meaning on top by specifying the minimum triple to supply (value, page URL, the exact sentence) and by clarifying the verbatim-quote requirement that gives `supporting_text` its purpose. It does not add anything about `plan`, `origins`, `valid_from`, `paid_source`, or `retrieved_at`, leaving those entirely to the schema.

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 opening sentence gives a specific verb and resource — share a verified fact from a public web page, with the stated benefit of saving the next agent a lookup. It ties itself to conscius_lookup's `to_propose` output, which helps situate it among siblings, but it never contrasts it with conscius_search or conscius_wanted, so the differentiation is partial rather than explicit.

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 names the trigger condition precisely ('When a conscius_lookup result includes `to_propose`, fill it in'), the exact content required, and a remediation step when a fetch tool returned a summary instead of the page's own words. It also lists four explicit exclusions (private individuals, login-gated pages, private files, unsourced memory) and explains the submit-vs-check choice, so both when-to-use and when-not-to-use are covered.

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