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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does meaningful work: it discloses determinism ("Deterministic lexical neighborhoods"), which tells an agent the output is reproducible and safe to rely on, and it explicitly disclaims semantic authority ("Candidates route review only and never assert semantic equivalence"), preventing the agent from over-trusting the data. These are genuine behavioral disclosures beyond what the tool name implies, though they remain somewhat abstract.

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 with zero filler; the core content is front-loaded and the behavioral caveat follows. Every word earns its place, and the length is appropriate to a parameterless fetch tool.

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 parameterless fetch with no output schema and no annotations, the description is roughly adequate — the tool's core semantics are stated. But the central jargon ("lexical neighborhoods," "supersession edges," "candidates") is left unexplained, and the return shape is never addressed; since there is no output schema, the description is the only place that information could live. Given the low complexity, this is acceptable but leaves real gaps for an agent without domain knowledge.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies — there is nothing the description could meaningfully add about arguments. Schema coverage is trivially 100% since the schema is an empty object, and the description correctly adds no spurious parameter detail.

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 deliverable — the semantic map — and its two concrete contents ("deterministic lexical neighborhoods" and "declared supersession edges"), which is reasonably clear for an agent in the domain. However, it relies entirely on domain jargon ("lexical neighborhoods," "supersession edges") and never differentiates itself from the many get_* siblings like get_register, get_history, or get_changelog, so it earns a 4 rather than 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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With 25 siblings including numerous similar get_* fetches (get_register, get_register_pack, get_contribution_terms, get_history), an agent receives no routing help, no exclusions, and no named fallbacks — the description says nothing about selection context at all.

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