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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, indicating safe read behavior. The description adds value by specifying that the timeline is 'public' and that 'operator-only fields (actorId, reason) are redacted,' disclosing data privacy behavior. It also lists the return fields (occurredAt, eventType, status transitions), going beyond what annotations convey.

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 three sentences, each serving a distinct role: core function, use case, and return/redaction details. No wasted words.

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?

The description covers purpose, use case, return value, and redaction. It does not explain parameter semantics or error behavior, but for a read-only, idempotent tool with annotations, it provides sufficient context for an agent to understand the tool's role and expected response format.

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?

The schema has zero description coverage for the two required parameters. The description only implies that methodologyHash refers to a 'specific methodology version' and lenderId is part of the request, but it does not explain their formats or roles. With such low schema coverage, the description should compensate more explicitly.

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 has a specific verb ('Return'), resource ('public lifecycle timeline'), and scope ('for a specific methodology version'), and lists the statuses (REGISTERED/SUPERSEDED/REVOKED). It also distinguishes from sibling tools like get_methodology_versions and verify_methodology by specifying its use for determining active status at minting time.

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 clearly states the intended use: 'Used by verifiers to determine whether a methodology was ACTIVE at the time a Schema B credit-risk attestation was minted.' This provides clear context for when to use the tool, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions.

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