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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden, and it adds meaningful behavioral detail: it does not compute a fused verdict, it returns raw lens views, the coverage block indicates which lenses responded, and issued_by provides attribution. It does not mention error handling or rate limits, but for a read-only style lookup this is adequate and substantially beyond a bare restatement.

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 concise and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core behavior, the second clarifies use cases and alternatives, and the third adds response-relevant details (coverage, issued_by). Every sentence earns its place, with no filler or repetition of schema content.

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 single-parameter lookup tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description provides complete context: it names the three lens views, explains the no-fused-verdict behavior, points to alternatives for different needs, and highlights response fields needed for reasoning about partial data. This is sufficient for an agent to select and 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?

There is only one parameter, node, and the schema already fully describes it (IPv4/IPv6 address, domain, ASN with optional AS prefix, or entity_slug; type auto-detected). The description adds no new parameter-specific details beyond calling it a 'node key,' so a baseline of 3 is appropriate given 100% schema coverage.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Returns all three lens views for a single node key without computing a fused verdict.' It also differentiates from siblings by stating what it does NOT do ('without computing a fused verdict') and by naming the raw-transparency use case, which clearly separates it from cross_lens_verify and preflight_should_i_act.

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 guidance is explicit: 'Use this when you want raw transparency... and intend to make your own decision.' It also names specific alternatives ('For an opinionated verdict, call cross_lens_verify instead. For an agent-side allow/caution/deny gate plus signed consultation receipt, call preflight_should_i_act.'), giving clear when-to-use vs. when-not-to-use context.

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