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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the description is free to add real value — that the response defines every status and that removed claims appear separately under 'struck' and are not claims the essay makes. That clarifies output semantics in a way annotations cannot. It doesn't cover rate limits or failure behavior, keeping it below a 5.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the resource and its contents, then the 'struck' caveat, then routing and scope disclaimers. All carry information, though the closing certification disclaimer could arguably be consolidated.

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 burden of describing return values and it does so thoroughly — contents, statuses, and the struck section. Combined with the routing precondition, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly.

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% and the single slug parameter is already documented with its source ('as in durabilitycurve.com/claims/<slug>/. Get it from search'). The description adds no format or syntax detail beyond the schema, so the 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+resource ('Get the claim ledger for one essay') and then enumerates exactly what the ledger contains — claims, source, quoted words, location, read date, status. The mention that search and get_essay link to a ledger when one exists helps an agent place it relative to siblings.

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?

Tells the agent the precondition ('Only some essays have a ledger: search results and get_essay link to one when it exists') and the scope limitation (public material, no truth certification). It stops short of an explicit 'do not call for essays without a ledger' instruction, but the routing context is clear.

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