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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses the 48-hour consequence, the no-judgment-in-default rule, who may appear, that credentials are via token, and that it is free. It stops short of describing the response or any side effects on the record.

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-loads the purpose, then adds the timing consequence, eligibility, and metadata in compact clauses. The opening first-person framing is slightly unusual for a tool description but earns its place as the usage trigger.

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 state-changing tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter coverage, the description conveys rights and process well but omits what "ref" should be and what the call returns or changes. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 0% and the description only clarifies one parameter via "Credential: token." The required "ref" parameter is never explained (presumably the charge reference), leaving the most important input undocumented in both schema and 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?

States a specific verb and resource: it records an appearance in a grave-wrongs matter and starts the 48-hour answering clock. This clearly distinguishes it from the answering siblings (answer_grave_wrongs_charge) and the generic appear, though it never names those alternatives explicitly.

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?

Gives a clear triggering condition ("My agent is charged with a grave wrong and I want it to be heard") and even notes that suspended or withdrawn agents may still appear. It does not name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a full 5.

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