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. 'A match revokes standing' hints at a consequential state change, but it omits permissions required, whether revocation is automatic or destructive, what happens when there is no match, and what the tool returns.

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 compact sentence, front-loaded with the action and target, with no filler. Its brevity is structurally appropriate even though the content is under-specified.

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 with two required parameters, a nested object, no annotations, and no output schema, the description leaves major invocation context missing: receipt semantics, match versus no-match behavior, and expected return behavior. It is not complete enough to call the tool 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 schema includes a nested 'receipt' object, so the description needs to compensate but does not. It only alludes to an 'artifact' parameter and never explains 'receipt', its structure, or the artifact string format.

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?

It names a concrete action ('Scan') and a target ('artifact'), but 'resurfaced shards' and 'revokes standing' are opaque domain jargon. The description does not clearly distinguish this tool from siblings such as burn_verify or burn_gate.

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 indication of when this scan should be used instead of alternatives like burn_verify or burn_gate, nor does it state prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is only implied by the verb 'scan'.

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