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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that it reads public data (non-destructive) and specifies exact fields, which gives good transparency. However, it doesn't mention rate limits, authorization needs, or what happens if the gate is unreachable. A score of 3 is appropriate for providing clear scope but lacking deeper behavioral details.

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, no wasted words. The first sentence front-loads the verb and resource with specifics, and the second sentence clearly delineates the boundary. Every word serves a purpose.

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?

Given the tool has no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is quite complete for a read-only facts tool. It lists all key data points and sets clear boundaries. It slightly lacks mention of error cases or availability patterns, but for the complexity level, this is adequate.

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?

The input schema has 0 parameters, and schema coverage is 100%, so no parameters need documentation. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining the tool's purpose and what data it returns. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description provides clarity on the return content.

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 clearly states the tool reads the Gate's public liveness facts and lists specific data points (issuer, served code revision, OIDC availability, supported protocols). The verb 'Read' and resource 'Gate's public liveness facts' are specific, and the scope is well-defined. The sibling tools like 'scan_trust' and 'verify_token' have different purposes, so this stands out.

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 implies usage for checking public liveness facts (e.g., OIDC status) without analyzing internal posture. It also states 'No posture internals,' which hints at what it doesn't do, but it doesn't explicitly name when-not-to-use or compare to siblings. The sibling set is diverse, so differentiation is somewhat inherent.

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