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

Annotations already cover read-only and closed-world, and the description layers on real behavioral context: the unavailable edge case where a sign-told deploy serves no document, the misconfigured state, the fact it mirrors a public URL, and who authors it. These are non-obvious failure modes an agent could not infer from annotations.

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 what the document is, then the field to branch on, then the state enumeration. Every sentence carries information, though the signature-state taxonomy is dense enough that it takes a second read for an agent skimming.

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 carries the return-value burden and does so: it lists the object's contents and names the one field an agent must branch on, plus the degraded case. Nothing needed to call it or interpret it is missing.

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?

Zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly spends no ink on inputs.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Read the honesty manifest') and then enumerates exactly what the returned JSON object contains: fee wallet, fees, rate limits, api_version, tool list, deprecation schedule. It is unmistakably distinct from siblings like docs or myFees.

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?

Gives a clear operating instruction — branch on signature_state — and enumerates the three values with what to do for each (verify signature with signature_pubkey, etc.). It also states the no-auth condition ('Public, no key needed'). It does not name a sibling alternative for when a narrower read (e.g. myFees) is preferable, so it stops short of a 5.

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