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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes further, disclosing the actual workflow (Ed25519 identity, checkpoint, discard runtime, restore, server-signed proof verifiable offline) and the return payload (live contract plus one-file reference client), which is meaningful context beyond the structured fields.

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?

Front-loaded with the subject and scope, followed by the workflow summary, the return value, and the exclusion. Two sentences carry a lot of information with little waste, though the workflow enumeration is dense enough to verge on overload.

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, the description correctly compensates by naming what is returned (the live contract and the reference client). It also clarifies the side-effect boundary ('Does not start a test'). The only gap is not relating this contract to the verify_continuity_proof sibling, which would complete the workflow picture.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing to disambiguate and the schema coverage is 100%. The baseline for a parameterless tool applies; no parameter-level detail is needed or missing.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Describes the voluntary Lumaion continuity self-test') and immediately clarifies scope with 'Does not start a test,' so an agent knows this is a contract-retrieval call, not an execution call. It does not name the sibling tools (get_continuity_index, verify_continuity_proof), so sibling differentiation is left to the tool name.

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 is implied by the audience statement ('an agent operator can run') and the negative constraint 'Does not start a test,' which rules out one misuse. However, it never says when to prefer this over get_continuity_index or verify_continuity_proof, so the agent must infer routing from names alone.

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