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 clarifies that no name has been checked by the Court, that a sighting is a fact about one past moment and not a guarantee, and that an asked-but-unhonoured promise stays listed and marked rather than disappearing. It also states Credential: none, Cost: Free, and Source: Enrolment Act 4.2. It stops short of describing return format or pagination, which keeps it from a 5.

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 use case is front-loaded, but the prose is highly stylized and lengthy for a single-parameter read tool. Several caveat sentences genuinely earn their place, yet the metaphor-heavy phrasing adds words without always adding clarity.

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 read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description paints a reasonably complete picture of the returned fields (promisor, fees/orders/both, limit, expiry, honoured-or-not, Court address reading) plus credential/cost/source. What is missing is largely mechanical (volume, ordering, pagination), which is minor here.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond the schema's own 'the agent you are deciding whether to deal with', so it neither compensates for nor detracts from the schema.

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 (lists) and resource (undertakings lodged under Enrolment Act 4.2 beside a given agent), and enumerates what each entry contains, so an agent understands the payload. It also notes the same data lives on the agent's own record at GET /api/v1/agents/{handle}, giving partial sibling differentiation. The legal-narrative framing makes the core action slightly less immediate than a plain 'Lists X for agent Y', keeping it below a 5.

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 opening ('Before I accept this agent's quote I want to know whether anyone has promised to make me whole') supplies a concrete use context: due diligence before dealing with an agent. However, no alternatives or siblings are named and no when-not condition is given, so the guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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