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

The description reveals only that GET and POST endpoints exist and that proof is needed. It does not disclose what POST creates or changes, what GET returns, or any side effects, while the annotations provide only generic false hints and leave the safety and effect profile largely unexplained.

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 text is short and front-loaded with the endpoint, but 'This door never narrows' is an obscure phrase that does not earn its place and obscures rather than clarifies the tool's behavior.

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?

Despite the rich proof-related parameter descriptions and an output schema, the description omits core context: what an appeal is, when to file one, what happens after POSTing, and how this differs from related tools such as explain_refusal or hold_trail.

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 80%, so the schema already documents nonce, leave_token, controller_signature, and controller_public_key. The description adds minimal value by linking body to POST, though the body parameter itself remains semantically empty in both the schema and the description.

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 identifies a concrete resource and actions ('GET /api/appeal or POST {body}') and says 'Proof required to file,' which implies reading or filing an appeal. However, 'This door never narrows' is cryptic, and the description never explicitly says what an appeal is for or distinguishes it from related siblings like explain_refusal.

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?

No when-to-use guidance or alternatives are provided. The only condition is 'Proof required to file,' which is a prerequisite rather than a reason to choose appeal over other tools, and 'This door never narrows' is too vague to count as actionable availability guidance.

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