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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. The verb 'Returns' implies a read-only operation and it details the output fields, but it does not disclose error behavior, permissions, or any side effects. This partial transparency is adequate but not rich.

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 single, front-loaded sentence that lists all relevant output fields without redundancy. Every word contributes to understanding, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 simple single-parameter status lookup, the description covers the main purpose and enumerates all returned data points, compensating for the lack of an output schema. However, it leaves domain-specific terms like 'anchored-bid coverage ratio' undefined, which slightly reduces completeness for unfamiliar agents.

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 only provides 'id' as a required string with no description. The description implies that 'id' identifies the AIT being queried, but it does not explicitly define it or specify format/constraints. This adds minimal meaning beyond the schema.

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 the specific verb 'Returns' and clearly identifies the resource (an AIT's status) plus enumerates the exact data fields. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like sigil_atap_register_ait or sigil_atap_witness, which handle different operations.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It neither mentions preconditions nor points to sibling tools for related operations, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the name and output description.

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