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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses that refuted mappings are kept in the graph rather than deleted, indicating a read-only behavior that preserves history. It also mentions the response format (JSON via 200). No contradictions. It could add more about rate limits or required permissions, but it provides meaningful behavioral context.

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 core description is concise and front-loaded with purpose. However, the appended '### Responses:' section is redundant and low-value, essentially restating that a 200 returns JSON without adding structure or details. This wastes a bit of space but overall the description is short and readable.

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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description is the sole source. It explains the philosophical value of refuted mappings but omits practical details about parameters, expected input formats, and response structure (beyond 'JSON'). An agent would be unsure what to pass for source/target and what the result exactly contains, so it is incomplete for a 3-param tool.

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 schema has three parameters (limit, source, target) with no descriptions, and the tool description has 0% schema coverage. The description mentions 'pair' but does not explicitly define source and target (e.g., what identifiers are expected) or explain the limit parameter. This is insufficient for an agent to know how to fill the arguments correctly.

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 clearly states the tool returns mappings that were proposed for a pair and later refuted, each with the reason for failure. It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on refuted mappings (vs. accepted) and emphasizes that these are kept for inspection. This is specific and actionable.

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 provides a clear usage context: 'This is the check worth running on any coverage claim' and explains that a crosswalk that never rejects anything is not being judged. While it doesn't explicitly name alternatives, it implicitly differentiates this from accepted-mapping tools and tells when it is valuable. It lacks explicit 'do not use when' but the intent is clear.

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