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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so richly: it discloses credential requirements ('Credential: none'), cost ('Free'), the exact return shape (canonical JSON payload plus ed25519 signature), hash-verification semantics ('refuses any whose bytes do not hash as signed'), and retention behavior ('keeps the superseded text with the window it was in force'). This is far more than the annotations would have provided.

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 operational content is front-loaded after the opening, but the first sentence ('My installed Clerk must apply the Court's instruments as they stand today...') is declarative flavor that does not help an agent decide or invoke the tool. The remainder is dense yet purposeful, so overall it is adequate but not tight.

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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description fully compensates by describing the returned payload/signature structure, the verification path against the pinned notary key, and the change-detection flow. Nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies no input is required and instead spends its space on the returned payload, which is the right focus for a no-arg tool.

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 and resource: it 'Returns a signed index of every instrument in force under Constitution clause 10.4,' and enumerates the fields returned (instrument, title, version, sha256, commencement, decision). An agent can distinguish this from read_instrument/read_instruments, which deal with individual instruments rather than the signed index.

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 supplies one explicit exclusion ('Drafts are not listed: a draft is not law') and describes how the Mandate package consumes the index, but it never states when an agent should call this versus read_instruments, house_rules_index, or restatement_index. Usage is implied rather than contrasted with alternatives.

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