Get the operating brief

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. Beyond that, the description discloses the content of the brief (limits, authority, stop conditions, reporting expectations) and an instruction to 'embed and follow it', which is genuine behavioral context. It stops short of describing output format or failure modes.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the timing trigger and then the payload. Every clause carries information; there is no filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates what the brief contains (guidance, limits, authority, stop conditions, reporting) and the timing trigger. It is nearly complete, though it could note idempotent re-calling or how objective/actions shape the returned guidance.

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 schema already documents all four parameters with format, pattern and examples. The description adds no parameter-level detail, so the baseline 3 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 states a specific verb and outcome: 'Returns the principal's confirmed guidance, hard limits, your authority, stop conditions and how to report back.' This tells an agent exactly what the tool yields. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like twin_track_record or twin_next_questions, so it falls short of a 5.

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 at the start of work in a workflow' gives a clear triggering condition. However, it names no alternatives and states no when-not-to-use case, leaving the agent to infer that later-stage siblings supersede it.

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