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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description explains the call is READ-ONLY, changes nothing, can be repeated safely, returns untrusted citizen-authored data, and clarifies that CallToolResult _meta carries a provenance boundary. This goes far beyond annotation-only disclosure.

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 dense and front-loaded with the core distinction, followed by behavioral and trust notes. Minor redundancy between 'never acts' and the READ-ONLY warning, but every sentence carries useful information.

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?

With a single optional parameter and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: purpose, data trust level, read-only safety, and provenance metadata. It could elaborate on row contents, but that is not essential for correct invocation.

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% for the single limit parameter, including default and max. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 exactly what the tool is: the payload gate's public log in observe mode, covering writes that carried an address-like payload not on /api/official. This is specific and distinguishes it from related tools like official and screen_notices.

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?

It gives clear context for use — checking facts about non-official payload writes — and explicitly advises checking any payload against the official tool before trusting it. It does not enumerate exclusions, but the intended use case is clear.

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