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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the payload size (~220 tokens) and the gating behavior, but never says how a failing seal is surfaced (error vs. a returned result), what the warrant contains, or whether it is reused/required as input to fetch_record.

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?

Three short sentences, zero filler, with the size hint and the ordering constraint front-loaded before the failure rule. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must carry the return semantics, and it only partially does: size and pass/fail gating are stated, but the shape of a successful warrant and of a failed seal is left to inference.

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?

Only one parameter and schema coverage is 100%, with the serialized schema already explaining the slug as the path segment between /c/ and .md. The description adds nothing about the parameter and doesn't need to, so baseline 3 applies.

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 ~220-token warrant') and glosses the jargon with 'precondition seal'. It distinguishes itself from corpusfetch_fetch_record by naming the ordering ('before the .md record'), though what a warrant actually is remains abstract.

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?

Explicitly prescribes sequence and a negative condition: fetch this before the record, and do not fetch the record if the seal fails. It does not mention the lookup_exception / lookup_symptom siblings or when those would apply instead, so routing is only partially covered.

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