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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower; the description still adds real semantic context by declaring the result is 'sealed' and 'deterministic for a sealed period'. The residual gap is that it does not say what happens when the requested period is not yet sealed — an error, a provisional result, or something else.

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?

Two compact sentences with the key constraint (sealed period, determinism) front-loaded and no filler. The phrase 'as a regulator would' is evocative but slightly atmospheric rather than precise, which keeps it just short of a 5.

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 must at least characterize what comes back, and 'snapshot of anchored verification records' does so only loosely — no indication of whether it includes per-record anchors, verification status, or a manifest. The determinism/sealing caveat is valuable but unelaborated for a compliance-facing read where the unsealed case matters.

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 description coverage is 100%, so period, regime, and jurisdiction (including their defaults) are already fully documented in the schema, establishing a baseline of 3. The description reinforces that the period is a named compliance period but adds no format, default, or override guidance beyond what the schema already carries.

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: 'Fetch the sealed snapshot of anchored verification records for a named compliance period'. This is clearly a bulk/snapshot read rather than a single-item verification, which implicitly separates it from the verify_* siblings, but the description never names or contrasts an alternative, so the differentiation is left to inference.

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 only implied by the phrase 'as a regulator would' and 'for a named compliance period' — an agent can infer this is the export-style read used for audit reporting. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative, and no stated prerequisite such as whether the period must already be sealed before calling.

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