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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so unusually well: it discloses that exact GPS coordinates are never returned, that v3 records only carry a commitment plus a zero-knowledge range proof, and that the district name is a GYOTAK-applied label outside that proof. It also explains the Midnight blockchain verify-link trust model, which is exactly the kind of context an agent cannot infer from structured fields.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and return fields, then the privacy caveat, then the verification route — a logical ordering. The middle sentence is dense and long (zero-knowledge proof, district labeling), but every clause conveys non-obvious information 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?

With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the returned fields and adds the privacy/trust caveats an agent needs. It stops short of covering result-set behavior: no pagination, ordering, empty-result handling, or what happens when date and tier are combined or both omitted (neither is required).

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 100%: the date format (YYYY-MM-DD) and the tier enum semantics (fresh=last 30 days, tier1=31-60, tier2=61-90) are already documented in the schema. The description only restates 'by date or freshness tier' and adds no syntax or interaction semantics, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('Get catch records by date or freshness tier') and immediately enumerates what is returned (catch date, district, blog post URL, per-batch verify link). It also separates itself from the sibling verify_catch by positioning that tool as the on-chain alternative, so an agent can route without opening either schema.

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?

Gives an explicit alternative path: 'To check a record on-chain without trusting GYOTAK, open its verify link, or call verify_catch with network "mainnet"...'. That is clear when-to-use-other guidance. It does not, however, explain when to pass date vs tier, what happens if both or neither are supplied, or how this differs from other record-retrieval siblings such as get_komon_records.

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