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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context: that the tool is not metered and that reconciliation verdicts are 'recorded, never gating,' which prevents an agent from wrongly treating violations as blockers.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then enumerates summary fields and verdict semantics efficiently. The field enumeration is somewhat dense and overlaps with the output schema, but every clause is informative rather than filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, yet the description still enumerates summary fields such as semantic key, lineage, form, kind, verdict, and admission time. Combined with verdict semantics and the pointer to open_standard_document, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret 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 coverage is 100% and the sole workspace_tag parameter is documented in the schema itself, referencing create_workspace and list_workspaces. The description adds no syntax or format details for the parameter, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Lists the typed statements admitted to a workspace') with an explicit scoping constraint. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like list_source_documents, list_workspaces, and open_standard_document, which serve different resources or granularity.

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?

Names open_standard_document as the route to full document content, giving an explicit alternative for a related need. It stops short of a true when-not-to-use statement (e.g., when to prefer list_review_items or verify_standard_document instead), so it falls just short of a 5.

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