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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context by disclosing the shape of the payload — per-assertion state, reason, check and evidence records — but says nothing about volume, pagination, or what happens with an unknown tool_id.

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 a single short sentence fragment with no waste, and the field enumeration is front-loaded. However, the missing verb makes it read as a noun phrase rather than an actionable description.

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 does well to enumerate returned fields, which is the critical gap-filler. But it leaves out how to form tool_id and gives no hint about the result set's size or ordering for a one-parameter lookup 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?

Schema coverage is 0% — tool_id is an undescribed string — so the description bears full responsibility. It only hints that the parameter refers to 'a tool', without saying whether it is an ID, slug, or name, or where to obtain a valid value (e.g., via resolve_identifier or search_tools).

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 (a tool's assertions) and enumerates the returned fields — state values, reason, check, evidence records — so an agent knows exactly what data it yields. The verb is only implied ('Every assertion for a tool'), and nothing distinguishes it from the sibling get_evidence, so it falls short of a 5.

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 statement of when to call this instead of get_evidence, check_before_install, or get_changes, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The agent must infer the use case from the field list alone.

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