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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool is issuer-scoped, that the named subject must belong to the authenticated issuer, and that grant existence is not publicly enumerable. This is meaningful behavioral context, though error details and auth failure behavior are not described.

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 just two sentences, front-loading the core purpose and output contents and then adding the key security constraint. Every sentence contributes necessary information with no filler.

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 one-parameter getter with no output schema, the description covers purpose, output contents, and access restrictions well. It does not explicitly define the `issuer` parameter or describe error behavior, but the agent has enough to invoke the tool correctly in the intended context.

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 0% and there is only one required parameter, `issuer`. The description implies that `issuer` identifies the entity whose delegation grants are being viewed and that it must be the authenticated issuer, but it never explicitly maps the phrase 'named subject' to the `issuer` parameter. The meaning is inferable but not fully explicit.

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 the exact operation (viewing delegation grants), references the protocol (DEC-009), and lists the returned content (delegate key fingerprints, states, remaining budget). It clearly differentiates this from other get tools by emphasizing it is the issuer's own, non-public view.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: it is the authenticated issuer's view of its own delegation grants and cannot be used to inspect others' grants. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or exclusions, but the access constraint is sufficient to route an agent correctly.

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