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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the read-only nature and the 'Max 1000 per call' cap, both genuinely useful. But it does not say what happens when the range exceeds 1000, how gaps in the chain are surfaced, or what the response contains.

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?

Two sentences totalling 14 words, with the verb and resource front-loaded and the constraint placed at the end. Every word earns its place; nothing is redundant.

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?

Adequate for a two-optional-parameter read tool, but with no output schema and no annotations, the description should hint at what the agent receives back (e.g., gap list, verification status, raw receipts). The 1000-cap also raises a pagination question that is not answered.

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%, so the baseline is 3 and the schema already documents both parameters and their defaults. The description adds one useful constraint, the 1000-cap on range size, but does not clarify inclusivity of endpoints or ordering behavior.

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 ('Read'), resource ('a range of receipts'), and the audit purpose ('chain continuity'). The range-scope distinguishes it from siblings vigil_get_receipt (single receipt) and vigil_verify_receipt (verification), though no sibling is named explicitly and the distinction is implied rather than stated.

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 'to audit chain continuity' implies when this tool should be selected, and 'Max 1000 per call' hints at call-sizing. However, no alternatives are named and no when-not-to-use conditions are given, which is a real gap given the 25 sibling tools the agent must route among.

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