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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, closed-world, non-destructive), yet the description adds real behavioral context: the stream is append-only, amendments supersede rather than overwrite, both before/after versions persist, each with its own change block and receipt.url. That predicts the shape and completeness of results in a way annotations cannot.

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 what the tool returns and in what order, followed by the append/amend model. Dense but mostly load-bearing; the 'never why' clause is more interpretive guidance than tool behavior, though it is short.

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 an output schema present, return values need not be re-explained, and the description still characterizes the version chain and restatement semantics. An agent has what it needs to call this correctly and read the results.

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?

There is only one parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, including the fact that identifiers survive restatement and are never reused. The description adds no further syntax or format detail for disclosure_id, so the baseline of 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 resource and verb-equivalent action: every observed version of one disclosure, returned oldest first. It is clearly distinguishable from search_disclosures (which finds disclosures) and from the other siblings (coverage, status, members).

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?

Usage is implied — you need a disclosure_id (from search_disclosures, per the schema) to trace its history — but the description never states when to prefer this over search_disclosures or when it is not applicable. The 'restated=true' and 'report what changed and when, never why' lines guide interpretation rather than tool selection.

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