Trace-store secret census

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that a Bearer token is required, but says nothing about whether the operation is read-only, what happens on an invalid/expired token, or what the response contains.

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 compact sentence with no filler, and the resource contents are front-loaded. Brevity here shades into under-specification rather than padding.

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 required-token account endpoint with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin: cryptic terms like 'pass' and 'backends' are never explained, and there is no indication of the returned data's shape.

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 single parameter 'token' is undocumented in the schema, so the description must compensate. It partially does by specifying the Bearer auth scheme, but does not say where the token comes from or how it should be formatted beyond the scheme name.

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 the resource contents (pass, backends, trial status) but supplies no verb, so the agent must infer that this retrieves account/subscription information. It does not distinguish this tool from siblings like census_limits or census_pricing, which likely also return account-scoped data.

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 guidance on when to call this versus census_limits, census_pricing, or census_verify. The only qualifier, '(Bearer token required)', is an authentication prerequisite rather than a usage condition.

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

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 does disclose genuine traits: no raw secrets are emitted, fragmented-secret false negatives are possible, and WTP is unmeasured. However, the disclosures are cryptic and omit return shape or read-only/rate-limit behavior, so it only partially fulfills the burden.

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 short, but the single fragment is not front-loaded with the tool's identity and reads as an unexplained jargon list rather than a structured statement. Brevity here comes at the cost of a clear lead sentence.

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 zero-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should at least establish what the tool returns and what the listed limits apply to. Instead it offers opaque limit names that an agent cannot operationalize into a decision to call it.

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 takes no parameters, so there are no argument semantics to document; this is the baseline 4 case. Schema description coverage is nominally 100% on an empty object, leaving nothing for the description to compensate for.

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 never states a verb or what the tool actually returns; it is a terse list of caveats that largely restates the name ('limits'). Among siblings like census_verify and census_pricing, it gives no verb+resource framing to distinguish itself, and terms such as 'coverage-set headline' are undefined.

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 prerequisites, and no reference to the sibling tools it competes with. The fragments hint at what the tool does not measure, but an agent gets no signal for when to call it instead of census_run or census_verify.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it says nothing about whether this is a read-only lookup, whether pricing is account-scoped, whether results are cached or rate-limited, or how 'pass caps' interact with the trial rule. It conveys topical content only, not behavior.

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 short sentence with no filler, and the most decision-relevant item (exact prices) comes first. It is efficient, though it reads as a bullet fragment rather than a front-loaded statement of what the tool does, which keeps it short of a 5.

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 zero-parameter lookup with no output schema, the description does tell the agent roughly what information comes back (prices, caps, trial rule), which is arguably the minimum viable coverage. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it should at least clarify that this is a non-mutating informational read and how it relates to census_limits.

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 input schema declares zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics for the description to explain. Per the no-params baseline, a 4 is appropriate; nothing here is missing that the description could reasonably supply.

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 the specific data this tool surfaces — exact prices, pass caps, and the one-time trial rule — so the topical scope is discernible. But it is a noun fragment with no verb or resource declaration (e.g. 'retrieve pricing and pass-cap details'), and it never distinguishes itself from census_limits, which a reader could easily confuse with 'pass caps'. Purpose is implied rather than stated.

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?

No indication of when to call this tool versus census_limits, census_account, or the other siblings, and no stated conditions or prerequisites. The agent is left to infer usage entirely from the fragment, which is exactly the situation the 'no guidance' band describes.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose real behavior: paid census work is refused over MCP and instead delivered via x402 on an HTTP endpoint. That refusal semantics is exactly the kind of trait an agent needs, though it doesn't say what the tool actually 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?

A single compact sentence that leads with what the tool is (the explainer for the paid path) before the routing constraint. Nothing is padded, though the sentence packs two ideas and could be split for clarity.

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 zero-parameter informational tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior (explanation + refusal over MCP). It is nearly complete; the only gap is that it never says what the explanation itself contains or how it is returned.

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 takes zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to document; the baseline for a 0-param tool is 4. The description gives no misleading parameter expectations.

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 function – it explains the paid census path rather than executing a paid census, which notably corrects the impression given by the name 'census_run'. It is clear on its own, though it never references the sibling tools (census_pricing, census_verify, etc.) to differentiate the free vs. paid paths.

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 implicitly tells the agent when this tool will not deliver value: paid work is refused over MCP and must go through x402 on POST /census. That is useful routing information, but it never states when the agent *should* call census_run or which sibling handles the free path.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does disclose a genuinely important behavioral constraint: paid verdicts are refused over MCP and delivered instead over x402 on GET /verdict/<backend>. That is the key thing an agent needs to know before calling anything verdict-related. It stops short of describing what the explanation response actually contains.

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 with the routing fact front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though the compressed phrasing (x402, GET /verdict/<backend>) borders on terse without further context.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema informational tool, the description gives the essential routing fact but not the shape of what is returned by calling it — whether it returns the explanation text, a URL, or a capability statement. Adequate but with a clear gap.

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 takes zero parameters (empty object schema, 100% coverage), so per the rubric the baseline is 4. There is nothing for the description to disambiguate.

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?

States a specific verb ("Explains") and a specific resource ("the paid verdict-query path"), so an agent can tell this is an informational/routing tool rather than a query executor. It is distinguishable from siblings like census_pricing and census_run, though the name census_verdict_query slightly implies querying rather than explaining.

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 implies when this is relevant (paid verdicts cannot be obtained over MCP, so this tool tells you how they are actually obtained), but it never explicitly says "use this when you need X" or names a sibling as the alternative path. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It names the Ed25519 algorithm but omits return semantics (boolean vs error), invalid-signature behavior, authentication needs, and the expected verdict format.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. Every word is doing work, though the brevity is offset by gaps handled in contextual completeness.

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 output schema, no annotations, and a nested object parameter at 0% schema coverage, the description is not complete enough. It leaves return values, verification failure handling, and verdict format for the agent to infer.

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 one required nested object parameter 'verdict' has no schema documentation. The phrase 'a signed verdict' hints at the parameter but gives no field structure or expected 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?

States a specific verb ('Verify') and resource ('signed verdict's Ed25519 signature'), making the operation clear. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the related sibling census_verdict_query, though the verb differs.

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?

Provides no when-to-use guidance, no alternatives, and no prerequisites. The single sentence offers no routing context for an agent choosing among the census_* siblings.

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