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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses durability, deduplication, immutability ('immutable first-detection log'), the meaning of an empty feed ('healthy CT ecosystem returns an empty feed'), and latency (KV-cached 1m, typical <200ms). However, it does not explicitly state read-only semantics or mention auth/rate limits, though the phrasing implies a read operation.

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 moderately long but well-structured: purpose, usage, inputs, returns, latency. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and every section earns its place. It could be tightened slightly, but the structure aids comprehension.

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 there is no output schema, the description thoroughly covers the return shape: both the summary fields (total, undelivered, rewinds, forks, bad_signatures, last_detected_at) and the alerts array fields (kind, severity, log_url, log_operator, from_tree_size, to_tree_size, distinct_roots, event_observed_at, detected_at, delivered). It also explains event semantics and latency, making it complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool.

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 schema provides only a parameter named 'limit' with numeric constraints and no description (0% schema coverage). The description compensates by explaining 'limit (query, optional): max recent alerts, 1–200, default 50.' This adds the semantic meaning of limiting recent alerts, which is exactly what the schema lacks.

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 the durable, deduplicated ledger of CT equivocation events.' It enumerates exact event kinds (tree_size_rewind, root_fork, sth_signature_invalid) and explicitly contrasts with '/v1/ghostroute/witness' (live computed health), clearly distinguishing itself from the sibling ghostroute_ct_witness tool.

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 provides explicit 'Use this tool when' bullets: for a chronological record of CT trust violations and for polling new events (check summary.last_detected_at). It also implies when not to use it by stating it is 'not live state' and referencing the witness endpoint for live health. This gives clear contextual guidance and an alternative.

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