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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety and determinism profile is covered by structured data. The description's only added behavioral signal is the 'when published' gate, which hints at failure or empty results for unpublished modules but never spells out what happens. No mention of auth, rate limits or return complexity beyond the row shape.

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?

One tight sentence with the resource front-loaded and the constraint ('when published') appended. Nothing is padded and there is no redundant restatement of the name or annotations.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of describing the return value; it does so partially by naming 'claim → evidence rows'. Annotations cover the safety profile. What is missing is the behavior of the publication gate and the slug semantics, which for a single-param, no-output-schema tool leaves a real 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?

Schema description coverage is 0% and there is a single required parameter (slug) that the schema documents only via a regex pattern. The description's 'for a module' implicitly maps slug to a module identifier, but it never states that the slug is the module slug or what format it expects. With low coverage the description should compensate more than it does.

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 gives a specific verb (get) and resource (the claim ledger, sketched as claim → evidence rows) scoped to a module and gated on publication status. That is enough for an agent to know roughly what comes back. It does not, however, contrast this tool with close siblings like get_evidence_bundle or verify_claim_hash, so an agent still has to infer which ledger-style tool it wants.

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 phrase 'when published' implies a precondition for using the tool, which is genuine but terse guidance. There is no explicit when-to-use versus when-not-to-use, nor any naming of the alternatives (e.g. get_evidence_bundle) that an agent should pick instead. Usage is therefore inferred rather than stated.

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