six_dimension_checklist

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true), so the description's job is to say what a caller gets back — and it does, listing the checklist dimensions, the four evidence tiers, and a step-by-step process. It does not describe the shape of the returned content (markdown block, JSON structure, ordering), which is the main remaining gap given there is no output schema.

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?

One sentence, verb-first, with the resource named before the parenthetical that enumerates its contents. There is no filler, hedging, or repetition, and the enumeration is the highest-value information for a caller.

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-parameter, read-only retrieval tool with no nested objects and no output schema, the description covers what is produced and at what granularity. The only shortfall is that "a step-by-step process" is left opaque — an agent cannot tell what process or in what format, though it is unlikely to be blocked from calling the 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?

There is a single optional parameter (`decision`) with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents it and the baseline is 3. The description never mentions the parameter or what effect supplying a decision line has on the returned checklist, so it adds no meaning beyond 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 description opens with a concrete verb and resource ("Return the six-dimension decision checklist") and enumerates the six dimensions, so an agent knows exactly what content comes back. It implicitly distinguishes itself from siblings like calculate_runway and grade_evidence by being a reference/retrieval tool rather than a computation or comparison, but never states that distinction explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the framing tool to call when a decision needs structuring, but the description gives no when-to-use trigger, no when-not, and no routing rule relative to calculate_runway, compare_options, or grade_evidence. Nothing is misleading, but the agent must guess the sequencing.

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