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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden, and it only discloses the residual-entry fallback and that entries are signed. It does not state permissions, side effects, idempotency, failure behavior, or whether a ledger write occurs.

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 definition is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted text. It communicates the core action and fallback immediately.

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 complex five-parameter tool with no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, the description is not complete enough. The fallback behavior is useful, but the agent lacks essential parameter and side-effect context.

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% for five parameters, and the description does not explain ledger_id, id, text, rank, or principal. The agent is given no semantic mapping between the parameters and the compile operation.

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 specific verb, "Compile," and a concrete resource, "standing rule into a signed ledger entry," plus the residual fallback case. It is distinguishable from ledger_create/diff/execute/verify by the compile semantics, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 describes the residual fallback when compilation cannot be faithful, but gives no guidance on when to choose ledger_compile over ledger_create or other sibling tools. No prerequisites or exclusion conditions are stated.

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