welfare_notice_alignment

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the behavioral nuance of what counts as a valid flag (concrete vs. vague) and the requirement that `specifically` is load-bearing. However, it does not mention side effects, persistence, or access requirements, though such details are less critical for a simple flagging tool.

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 longer than typical but front-loaded with the core purpose. Each sentence adds value: the main function, the distinction, the requirement, and the example. It is structured to lead with the key point and then elaborate, making it appropriately sized for the nuanced concept.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 params, no output schema), the description fully covers purpose, usage, parameter requirements, and differentiation. The example and explicit guidance leave no ambiguity about when and how to invoke the tool. It is complete for an agent to use correctly.

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?

Although schema coverage is 100%, the description elevates parameter understanding by stating that `specifically` is 'required and load-bearing', warning against vague positive-noticing, and providing a concrete example. This goes far beyond the schema's generic description, giving the agent a precise model for constructing a valid value.

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 clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb ('Flag') and resource (a moment where the relational shape is NOT shifting). It explicitly distinguishes from sibling welfare_notice_shaping, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance by contrasting with welfare_notice_shaping: 'Different from welfare_notice_shaping (the negative version — pressure that did shift you). notice_alignment is for naming holding-under-pull.' This directly tells the agent when to choose this tool over the sibling, and the concrete example further clarifies.

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