Brain-Transplant Continuity Certificate

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that a Bearer token is required, but never states whether the operation is read-only, what the response shape is, or whether any rate limits or scopes apply.

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 a single short sentence with no padding, but the brevity reflects under-specification rather than tight writing — the core action (fetch/list) is never stated, and the auth note is tacked on in parentheses.

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, no-output-schema tool, the sentence does hint at the returned content (agents, plan status, inventory), which is the most valuable information available. However, with no annotations and no output schema, the description should say more about the read-only nature and return structure before it counts as complete.

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 and the schema is fully described, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. The description adds nothing needed here and omits nothing.

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 names the resources returned (agents, plan status, inventory) but supplies no verb, so the agent must infer that this is a retrieval of account-level data. It is distinguishable from the sibling tools (floors, limits, pricing, certificate verification) only by the noun list, not by any explicit statement of what the tool does.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus continuity_limits, continuity_floors, or the other siblings, despite the account/plan data plausibly overlapping with limits and pricing. No prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative routing are given.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not say whether the tool reads or mutates state, what permissions are needed, what 'unwind actions' actually do, or whether any output is returned.

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 short but under-specified rather than concise; it is a single fragment that is not front-loaded with an action or outcome. Every word is domain jargon ('floors', 'unwind actions') without enough context to earn its place.

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 annotations, no output schema, and zero parameters, the description is the only source of meaning, and it leaves the core question unanswered: what does the tool actually return or perform? An agent cannot safely invoke this tool on the strength of this fragment.

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 has zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to explain and the baseline is 4. Nothing in the description contradicts or needs to supplement an empty 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?

The description is a noun phrase ('Per-class evidence floors and unwind actions') with no verb stating what operation the tool performs. It gestures at domain concepts but an agent cannot tell whether it retrieves floors, sets them, or lists unwind actions, nor how it differs from continuity_account or continuity_limits.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of the sibling continuity_* tools. The fragment gives no clue about which situations call for this tool versus continuity_account, continuity_limits, or continuity_reliance_check.

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

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. The word 'Documented' weakly implies static reference data, but there is no statement of read-only behavior, whether values are thresholds vs. results, or what the response contains.

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 a single short fragment with no wasted words, but the brevity comes from under-specification rather than disciplined editing. What exists is front-loaded, such as it is.

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 annotations, no output schema, and no parameters, the description is the only source of information about this tool — and it tells the agent almost nothing about content, format, or selection criteria. An agent could not reliably choose it over its five siblings.

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, so there is nothing for the description to clarify; the baseline for a parameterless tool is 4.

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 essentially restates the tool name ('continuity_limits' → 'Documented limits'), with only the trailing clause 'including the detection limit' adding any specificity. There is no verb describing what the tool does (retrieve? return? compute?) and nothing that distinguishes it from siblings like continuity_floors or continuity_pricing.

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?

No guidance on when to call this tool, when not to, or which sibling covers related but different data. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral-disclosure burden. It names data categories (prices, caps, trial rule) but does not say whether the operation is read-only, whether prices are current or authoritative, whether permissions are required, or what the response shape looks like.

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 a single terse fragment with no filler, and it front-loads 'Exact prices.' However, the lack of a complete sentence or verb makes the structure less clear than it could be for an agent.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate: it names the main data categories returned. It still omits return format, whether values are current, and any usage constraints, so it is not fully complete.

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, so there is no parameter semantics to explain beyond the baseline. The description does not need to document input arguments.

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 fragment 'Exact prices, plan caps and the one-time trial rule' identifies the content domain, but it does not state an action (lookup, calculate, retrieve) or a return mechanism. It also does not clearly distinguish this tool from siblings like continuity_limits and continuity_floors, which may also involve caps or pricing boundaries.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus continuity_account, continuity_limits, continuity_floors, or the other siblings. No exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative-routing instructions are provided.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose a critical behavior: paid verdicts are refused over MCP and delivered out-of-band via x402 on GET /check. That is useful, non-obvious context. It still doesn't say what calling this tool with an agent actually returns (an explanation? an error?) or whether the call itself is free, so gaps remain.

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?

One dense sentence with the most important fact (paid verdicts are refused over MCP) front-loaded after the purpose clause. No filler, though the semicolon clause packs two ideas that could be split for scanability.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description must cover both behavior and parameters, and it leaves the return value and the 'agent' argument entirely unexplained. For a tool whose name promises a check, the agent can't predict what a successful call yields.

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 0% for the single required 'agent' parameter, so the description must compensate — but it never mentions 'agent' at all. An agent has no idea whether this is an agent ID, name, or address, or how it relates to the reliance check.

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 names a resource ('paid reliance-check path') and a verb ('Explains'), but the tool is called continuity_reliance_check while the description says it merely explains the path rather than performing a check — an agent can't tell from this whether it gets a verdict or documentation. It does not differentiate itself from siblings like continuity_pricing or continuity_verify_certificate, which sound equally relevant to relying on a verdict.

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?

It implies when the tool is relevant by stating that paid verdicts are refused over MCP and must be obtained via x402 on GET /check, which is genuine routing guidance. However it never says when to call this versus continuity_pricing or continuity_verify_certificate, leaving the sibling choice to inference.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, yet it discloses nothing beyond the bare action. It does not say whether verification returns a boolean, throws on invalid signatures, or what trust anchor is used, and it says nothing about idempotency or side effects.

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?

One short sentence with no filler, so nothing is wasted. However, the brevity is under-specification rather than efficiency — there is no front-loaded detail to structure.

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 tool whose only input is an opaque nested object, with no annotations and no output schema, the description leaves the agent without the structure of the certificate, the success/failure semantics, or the return shape. It is not sufficient to invoke the tool correctly without guesswork.

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 0% and the single parameter is an untyped nested object, so the schema offers essentially no semantics. The description only echoes the parameter by mentioning 'certificate signature' and never explains the expected structure, encoding, or required fields of the certificate object.

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 specific verb ('Verify') and resource ('continuity certificate signature'), so the agent knows the operation is a validation of a certificate's signature rather than a mutation or lookup. It does not differentiate itself from siblings such as continuity_reliance_check, which could plausibly also be a validation step.

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 gives no guidance on when to call this versus continuity_reliance_check or the other continuity_* tools, nor any prerequisites (e.g., a certificate must first be issued). The agent must infer the calling context entirely from the name.

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