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.