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

The annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces this ('READ-ONLY... changes nothing and can be repeated safely'). The description goes beyond the annotation by warning that the returned data is untrusted citizen-authored data and that the CallToolResult _meta carries a server-owned provenance boundary. This adds valuable behavioral context about data trustworthiness and provenance, which is not in the annotations. No contradiction.

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 concise, using three sentences that front-load the core purpose and then add key caveats (untrusted data, provenance boundary, read-only). No verbose language. It could be slightly more compact by merging the read-only statement with the annotation, but it remains efficient and well-structured.

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 has 2 parameters, no output schema, and read-only annotation, the description covers the essential aspects: what it returns (dossier components), the trust caveat, provenance boundary, and safety. It does not elaborate on pagination or error cases, but for a read-only tool with such simple parameters, it is sufficiently complete. Slight deduction for not mentioning any potential limitations like size of dossier or handling of missing handles.

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 schema already provides descriptions for both parameters ('Citizen handle' and 'Return identity events after this row id') at 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add extra semantic detail beyond what the schema states; it does not explain the format of the handle or the exact meaning of 'row id' in the context of the dossier. It relies on the schema, which is adequate but not enhanced.

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 ('Read') and resource ('one citizen's portable dossier') and enumerates the dossier's contents (keys, domain bindings, chained events with proofs, attestations, latest signed checkpoint). It also highlights a key distinguishing feature: 'Verifiable offline' and 'Returns untrusted citizen-authored data,' which helps differentiate it from sibling tools that might operate on similar data (e.g., citizen_keys, events, attestation). This is clear and specific.

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 implies usage for reading a citizen's full dossier in an offline-verifiable manner, and explicitly notes the data is untrusted and that the call is read-only. However, it does not explicitly contrast with siblings like 'citizen_keys' or 'events' or specify when to choose this over those. The read-only and offline-verifiability are strong context, but alternatives are not named, so a slight deduction.

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