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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the scope (records from verdict-bearing calls while compliance is enabled), the fields each entry carries, and the filtering and pagination behavior. It does not mention ordering or error cases, but covers the essential behavioral traits well.

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 three sentences: purpose, fields, and filtering/pagination. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence provides necessary information without waste. The structure is logical and easy to scan.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (a paginated ledger) and the absence of an output schema or annotations, the description is quite complete. It covers the returned content, the filtering and pagination mechanics, and the scope. It could mention ordering, but overall it is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 input schema already provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all four parameters. The description largely restates the schema ('Filter with from/to (ISO8601) and page with cursor (a seq) + limit (≤1000)') and adds marginal clarification that cursor is a sequence number, which the schema already notes. Thus, the baseline of 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('Returns') and clearly identifies the resource ('hash-chained decision records') with a precise scope ('one per verdict-bearing call... while compliance is enabled'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like compliance_export or audit_export by emphasizing the hash-chained structure and the included fields.

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 description clearly implies when to use the tool: when you need your hash-chained decision records. It provides context by listing the qualifying call types and the filtering/pagination options. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, so it falls short of a 5.

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