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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context on top: 'Reads published files only' (static published artifacts, not live data) and that include_bundle 'does nothing on the index' — a non-obvious no-op an agent would otherwise have to discover.

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?

Four tight sentences with no filler; the payload list leads and the scoping/exclusion clauses follow. Slightly dense and run-on, but every sentence carries information an agent needs.

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 carries the return-value burden and does it well by enumerating the returned fields and the verification affordance, while also covering the index-vs-bundle branching. Nothing needed to invoke it correctly 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters and their default/empty-string semantics. The description restates the same behavior (model omitted returns index, include_bundle default false) without adding syntax, format, or edge-case detail beyond the schema.

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 names a specific verb+resource (the published silence proof for one model) and enumerates the payload it returns: silence_days, observed window, epochs, seal id, URL, verification steps. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly ruling out 'the live totals' and 'the weekly report', which maps to crovia_status and silence_report.

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?

It clearly states the index fallback condition (model omitted or empty) and the include_bundle behavior, plus two explicit exclusions. It stops short of naming the alternative tools to use for live totals or the weekly report, so routing is implied rather than spelled out.

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