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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: school splits are typed request parameters rather than hidden defaults, and the response echoes which arrangement and reading produced it. This helps an agent understand that variant selection is explicit and observable in the output.

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 three sentences with no filler: the first enumerates return contents, the second clarifies behavior around variants and echo, and the third gives concrete use cases. Information is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.

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 read-only whole-tree retrieval tool with no output schema, the description covers the main return contents and the key behavioral nuance of echoed variants. It could go slightly further in describing the response shape or compact mode, but those details are available in the schema and the description is otherwise complete for selecting and invoking 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the schema already documents each parameter. The description reinforces that school variants are typed parameters rather than hidden defaults, but it does not add new semantic detail about individual parameter values beyond what the schema provides.

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 uses a specific verb ('Return') and names the exact resource: the whole Tree of Life with ten sephirot, Daat, 22 paths, four worlds, and lightning flash order. It clearly differentiates itself from granular sibling endpoints by emphasizing 'whole Tree of Life in one call' and by stating it is built for diagram and reference use rather than a picture or individual element.

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 context: use it for Tree of Life diagrams, tarot path features, and reference pages needing structure rather than an image. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use it, but the 'whole tree in one call' framing and target use cases make the appropriate context reasonably explicit.

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