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

Annotations already establish readOnly/non-destructive, but the description adds real value beyond them: page size (25 records), the presence of nextCursor pagination, and the fact that no auth token is needed. This is useful operational context an agent would otherwise have to discover by trial.

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 tight sentences with no filler; scope and qualifiers come first, then return shape and auth requirement. Every clause carries information.

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 compensates by describing the return shape (25 records plus nextCursor) and the public/no-token access model. For a two-parameter, fully-documented read tool this is close to complete, missing only explicit sibling routing.

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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters (after, result enum) are already documented in the schema; the 3 baseline applies. The description's mention of 'nextCursor' loosely reinforces the cursor parameter but adds no format or semantics beyond the schema.

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 clear verb-resource pair and narrows scope with 'public accepted checks on active claims,' which separates it from morrowkin_read_check (single check) and morrowkin_search_claims. It does not, however, explicitly name a sibling as the alternative, so it falls short of the 5 bar.

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?

Usage is only implied: the read-only browse nature and 'no token required' hint at when it applies, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusion, and no pointer to read_check or search_claims as alternatives.

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