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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered structurally. The description adds value beyond them by disclosing the security boundary that it cannot authorize payments or forward keys and does not touch the /decide or /seal endpoints. It stops short of describing what the contract read returns or how large/fresh it is.

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, both front-loaded: the positive capability first, the safety boundary second. Every clause carries information an agent would otherwise have to guess.

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 zero-parameter, read-only discovery tool with no output schema, the description says enough to call it correctly and to know what it will not do. A brief indication of what the 'contract' response looks like (endpoint list, pricing terms) would make it fully self-contained.

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 tool takes zero parameters (additionalProperties: false), so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies for a no-parameter tool.

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?

Specific verb and resource: 'Read the live Verdict Protocol OpenAPI contract'. The second clause carves out a distinct negative scope ('never calls /decide or /seal'), which cleanly separates it from sibling verdict_decide without requiring the agent to open either schema.

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?

Explicit when-not guidance is present ('never calls /decide or /seal and cannot authorize payments or forward keys'), so the agent knows this is a discovery/inspection tool rather than an action tool. It does not, however, name a positive condition or an alternative sibling for the cases it excludes, leaving some inference to the agent.

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