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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden; it does disclose two non-obvious traits: a per-call cost and invalidation on any version change. It omits what a caller actually receives (verdict payload shape), what happens on a miss/expiry (error vs. empty), and any auth or rate-limit constraints, so it remains materially incomplete for a zero-annotation tool.

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?

A single dense sentence that front-loads the purpose, then the cost, then the invalidation rule, with no filler. It is terse to the point of being cryptic, but every clause earns 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?

No output schema, no annotations, three undocumented required parameters, and a sibling tool that is never referenced. The description never explains what a 'verdict' contains or how expiry surfaces to the caller, so an agent lacks enough to invoke and interpret it confidently.

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% and the description names none of server_id, client_rev, or server_rev, so no parameter meaning is added. Worse, 'exact pair' implies two identifiers while the schema requires three, which could mislead an agent about the key structure.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('query' a 'stored signed verdict') and qualifies the scope ('for an exact pair'), so an agent knows it is a cache-lookup tool rather than a computation. It does not, however, name or distinguish itself from the sibling conformance_probe, and 'exact pair' is ambiguous given three required params.

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?

Cost ('$0.01 / pass') and the expiry rule ('EXPIRED on any version move') imply when the call is worthwhile versus re-deriving a verdict, which is useful implied guidance. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement and no mention of conformance_probe as the alternative when a version has moved.

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