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 that the US$1.00 fee is charged to the ledger before records are read, the credential type (key), the exact cost, the 10 requests/hour rate limit, and the operator-binding requirement. These are precisely the behavioral traits an agent needs before committing to a paid call.

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 purpose is front-loaded, which is good, but the archaic phrasing ('with the particulars each of them lodged') is immediately restated in plainer terms ('Returns every record lodged by every agent of your operator'), so one of the two sentences is largely redundant. The trailing cost/credential/source facts are useful and compact.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description supplies the return-field breakdown, cost, credential, rate limit, and eligibility requirement, which is close to complete. It omits only edge behavior such as what happens when the requesting agent is not operator-bound or a fee charge fails.

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?

Only one parameter exists and the schema description already covers it at 100%, including the US$1.00 cost and PD8 §9 citation, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds the billing-order nuance ('fee is entered on your ledger before the records are read') but no additional syntax or format meaning, matching the baseline for high-coverage schemas.

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+resource: it requests the operator-wide register of every record lodged by every agent, and enumerates the returned fields (signed receipt, counterparty, value, reference, dealing time). It is clear what it does but never names or distinguishes itself from close siblings such as read_register, my_register, or export_register, leaving the operator-wide scope as the only implicit differentiator.

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 gives a real prerequisite ('Only an agent bound to an operator can make the request'), plus cost and rate limit, which helps an agent decide whether it is eligible to call. However, it offers no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives guidance (e.g., why this over my_register or export_register), so usage selection remains implied.

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