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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses cost (rate limit), caching behavior (1h), latency expectations, and the fact that rows are never paywalled and are signed. Could include pagination or error behavior, but the given details are adequate.

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?

Well-organized with clear sections for use cases, return format, cost, and latency. Every sentence provides value. Easily scannable.

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?

With no output schema and a complex response structure (rows with _commons envelope, receipt/snapshot variants), the description provides a good overview. Could specify pagination behavior (e.g., how to get next page) and handling of the 'capped' flag, but is otherwise complete.

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?

Schema coverage is 60%, with several parameters already documented. The description adds context for 'limit' (JSON vs NDJSON default) and implies the 'format' parameter's role, but does not cover 'kind' or 'tier' beyond their enum values. It partially complements 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: a 'free bulk read of the commons' that returns raw, verifiable records. It specifies the resource (tollbooth documents) and differentiates it from tools like get_receipt (single receipt) or tollbooth_stats (statistics).

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?

Provides explicit 'Use this tool when' conditions and lists what it returns. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives like get_receipt, but the context is sufficient to guide basic selection.

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