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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds the operator-only access constraint, but says nothing about rate limits, pagination, or scope of the returned status set. It adds some value without being rich behavioral context.

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?

Two sentences, zero waste. The access restriction and the data returned are both front-loaded, and the auth requirement follows immediately. Nothing needs trimming.

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, and the description compensates by naming what comes back (agent statuses, unresolved inbox count). Auth requirements are stated, and the read-only nature is covered by annotations. Only marginal gaps (response shape detail) remain.

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 both parameters (api_key, api_secret) are documented in the schema itself. The description only restates that an operator api_key and api_secret are required, adding no syntax or format detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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: 'Read agent statuses and unresolved inbox count from the Fixatum agent communication layer.' The scope (fleet status) is clear and distinct from the contract/governance/hcs siblings. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the closest sibling fixatum_fleet_inbox, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

'Operator-only' implies the caller class and sets a precondition, and the auth requirement is spelled out. However, there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to siblings like fixatum_fleet_inbox or fixatum_status; usage must be inferred from the phrase 'agent statuses.'

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