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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does substantial work: it discloses that the return is a signed index (payload canonical JSON + ed25519 signature), that the digest covers rules alone so unchanged rules read as current, that verification happens via law.mjs against a pinned notary key, and that no credential is needed and cost is free. It stops short of error or idempotency behavior, but this is well above the no-annotation baseline.

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 description is a dense run-on of statutory cross-references ('Rule 7.7', 'Rule 3.2', 'Mandate cl 12') that a caller must parse before reaching the actionable facts. Useful details (free, no credential, signed output) are buried mid-sentence rather than front-loaded, and the framing sentence about the Clerk's session adds atmospheric noise rather than routing value.

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 supplies enough to call and consume it: what the index contains, that payload/signature is the return shape matching the instruments manifest, how it is verified, and the access cost. Only the relationship to the sibling 'restatement' tool is left unaddressed.

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. No parameter meaning needs to be supplied, and the description correctly does not invent any.

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 does state a verb+resource ('Returns a signed index of the Restatement'), and clarifies the content: rules carrying weight under Rule 3.2 plus rules the High Court has displaced. However, it is wrapped in heavy self-referential legalese ('My installed Clerk', 'closed session'), and it never distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'restatement' or from 'law_index'/'house_rules_index', leaving the agent to guess the boundary.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the Clerk 'must read a closed session against the rules the Court has settled, not only the instruments', which hints at when to prefer this over the instruments index. There is no explicit when-not guidance and no mention of the nearest sibling 'restatement', so the routing signal is only partial.

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