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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses authentication requirements, identical 404 behavior for unknown ledgers and bad tokens, non-charging for that case, the exact price, and idempotent asset counting. These are meaningful operational details, though response format and pagination are not covered.

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 front-loaded and mostly efficient, covering purpose, idempotency, auth, error behavior, and price in a short space. The final sentence naming the MCP tool repeats the tool name and does not add value.

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?

For a simple one-parameter read-only tool with rich annotations, the description covers purpose, auth, billing, and error semantics. However, it does not sufficiently explain the sole parameter or clarify how the ledger identifier is obtained, which is a notable gap given the 0% schema description coverage.

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 0% for the single required ledger_id parameter. The description implies a ledger is identified and that a ledger token is required, but it does not explain the format, source, or relationship of ledger_id to the token, leaving a clear semantic gap.

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 identifies the resource as an audit record for one ledger and specifies the contents: what was marked, when, layers, and standard versions. It does not explicitly differentiate this from sibling tools such as list_compliance_profiles, but the scope is specific enough for an agent to understand the tool.

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 implied by the phrase 'audit record' and 'for one ledger', giving some context for when to request a compliance report. However, the description does not state when to use this versus alternatives or any exclusions, so guidance remains minimal.

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