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

Annotations already signal readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=false, so the bar is lower. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: no payment occurs, it is not a license, and the returned claim token must be kept private. It does not detail side effects of the non-read-only operation, but it provides valuable cautionary information beyond the annotations.

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 short sentences with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, followed by essential distinctions ('no payment', 'not a license') and a security instruction. 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?

With 7 parameters and no output schema, the description is too brief to fully support correct invocation. It omits any guidance on how the parameters interact, what the claim token is used for, and what 'observed RSL declarations' means in practice. The high-level warning is useful, but an agent would still need to infer a large amount of invocation context.

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 only 43%, so the description should compensate for the undocumented parameters. It does not explain how 'bounded', 'signed', or 'claim token' map to parameters like max_total_micro, tier, freshness_seconds, or geo. The schema's own descriptions and enums carry most of the meaning, leaving several parameters underspecified.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Prepare a bounded signed report of observed RSL declarations.' It also explicitly clarifies what the tool is not ('not a license') and that 'no payment occurs,' which differentiates it from the sibling acqpath_quote. This is far more specific than a tautology and gives an agent a clear sense of the tool's scope.

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 provides exclusionary context ('no payment occurs', 'This is not a license') that helps an agent avoid using it for paid or licensing purposes. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus the siblings acqpath_quote or acqpath_capabilities, nor does it name alternatives directly. The usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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