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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered; the description adds substantive behavioral context by disclosing the payload's shape, including verification status and Bitcoin block anchoring. It stops short of stating failure behavior for a missing slug or whether counts are cached/live, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

It is one dense but well-ordered sentence followed by a short usage tip, with the resource stated first and the returned fields enumerated in a readable sequence. The field list is long, but each item carries informational weight rather than filler.

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 correctly shoulders the job of explaining return values and does so in detail, including the ledger and block-number evidence. What is missing is edge-case behavior — nonexistent or unpublished slugs — which matters for a lookup keyed on a user-supplied identifier.

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 the single slug parameter is fully documented there, including its regex pattern and its provenance (find_petitions, my_petitions, start_petition). The description adds no further meaning about the slug, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 opens with "One live petition" and then enumerates exactly what is returned — wording, recipient, verified signature count, goal, signing/checking links, and ledger status — which makes the resource and scope unambiguous. It implicitly distinguishes itself from the plural find_petitions by emphasizing a single petition, though it never names the sibling outright.

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: "One live petition" signals this is the single-record counterpart to find_petitions, and the closing line gives an output-side instruction ("Quote the block numbers when the user asks for proof"). There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of prove_signature as an alternative, and no guidance on what to do when the slug is unknown.

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