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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it only discloses the authorization scope ('your operator only'). It says nothing about whether the operation is read-only, whether results are paginated, how large the ledger might be, or what happens when no server is supplied.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler words, so nothing is wasted. However, the brevity crosses into under-specification, and the parenthetical scope caveat is cryptic rather than clarifying.

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 domain-specific tool with no annotations, no output schema, and an undocumented parameter, the description is far too thin. Only the operator-scope restriction is conveyed; an agent has no picture of the return shape or the read semantics needed to invoke this 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?

The single 'server' parameter has 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate and only partially does via the word 'per-server'. It leaves the fundamental ambiguity unresolved: the schema marks the parameter optional, yet the description never says whether omitting it returns rows for all servers or errors.

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 ('per-server sampling ledger rows') but supplies no verb, so an agent cannot tell whether it reads, lists, or computes anything. It is not pure tautology because 'per-server' and the ledger concept add some specificity, but it does nothing to distinguish itself from guard_meter, guard_policy, or guard_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?

There is no statement of when to call this versus its three siblings, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The parenthetical '(your operator only)' hints at a scope restriction on the data but does not tell an agent under which task conditions this tool is the right choice.

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