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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states certificates are 'immutable' but does not clarify read-only nature, side effects, or performance constraints. The schema mentions index timeouts for from_ms but this is not in the description.

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 two efficient sentences. The first sentence states the core action, the second provides usage guidelines. Every word adds value, and the structure is front-loaded with the most critical 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?

Given 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers high-level purpose and usage but lacks details about return values, pagination, or the complex from_ms behavior. It is minimally complete for an agent familiar with the domain but could be improved.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema; it only restates the general purpose. The from_ms auto-narrowing behavior described in the schema is not mentioned in the description.

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 queries immutable ProofOfLogic certificates on Irys Datachain. It explicitly distinguishes from sibling tool query_agent_trust by indicating use cases for audit history and FAIL verdicts, and what not to use it for.

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 instructions (verify audit history, check FAIL verdicts, retrieve by Irys tx ID) and when-not-to-use (on-chain trust scores), with a named alternative (query_agent_trust). This leaves no ambiguity for the agent.

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