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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return envelope ('Wrapped in the proof envelope') and content exclusions (no dispute_contact_url). It does not mention side effects, auth, or error behavior, but for a simple read-only getter, this level of transparency is adequate and adds value beyond the schema.

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?

The description is three short sentences, each providing substantive information: what is returned, what is excluded, and the envelope. There is no redundancy or fluff, and key facts are front-loaded.

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?

Given the tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description adequately explains the return value (issuances, by_class, total) and the proof envelope. It also places the tool in the context of the snapshot family by noting what it does not include. A slightly higher score would require more detail on return types or formats, but current detail is sufficient for basic use.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly avoids parameter explanations, and its mention of the return structure is relevant. No param info is needed since there are none.

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 clearly states the tool returns the MPT snapshot dict with specific fields (issuances / by_class / total). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly noting the absence of third-party naming and dispute_contact_url, making it unique among the snapshot family.

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 description implies usage context: it returns the raw MPT snapshot without third-party naming, so if a consumer needs dispute_contact_url or third-party data, they should use a different tool. This exclusion criterion provides some guidance, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool beyond that specific case.

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