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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), yet the description adds substantial context: values are PROJECTED/NOMINAL and the total is a sum of projections, not realized value; entries are hash-signed evidence records; and any key role suffices for auth. This is exactly the value-add beyond structured fields.

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?

Purpose and scope are front-loaded in the first sentence, and the subsequent sentences carry necessary semantic weight (projection caveat, provenance, auth). Dense but every sentence earns its place; minor run-on density keeps it from a 5.

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 must convey the return shape, and it does: entry contents (signed evidence record, source decision, projected/nominal values) plus a total. It omits pagination/ordering mechanics beyond 'newest first,' a minor shortfall for a list-style read 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 33% (only api_key documented), so mandate_id and household_id rely on the description. It explains that the ledger can be scoped to one mandate or household, adding filter meaning, but does not clarify exclusivity or whether both may be passed together, leaving a gap.

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 scope: 'Ledger entries written by approvals, newest first, optionally for one mandate or household, with the total.' An agent can tell this returns an approvals ledger rather than the decisions themselves (list_decisions) or a household summary. It stops short of explicitly naming a sibling to disambiguate against, so not 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?

Usage is implied via 'optionally for one mandate or household,' which signals the filtering intent, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or comparison to list_decisions/get_decision. The 'Same as GET /api/v1/ledger' note aids developers, not tool selection.

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