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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses an important failure mode ('Honest-partial when a list fetch fails') and response wrapping ('Wrapped in the proof envelope'), which are valuable beyond the empty schema. However, it does not mention permissions or rate limits, though these are less critical for a read-only status tool.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that states the primary purpose first, then adds the failure behavior and envelope wrapping. Every phrase adds useful information with no redundancy or filler.

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?

For a zero-parameter status tool, the description covers the main return content, the failure mode, and the response envelope. It does not detail the exact JSON shape, but that is likely unnecessary given the simplicity and the proof envelope reference.

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 focuses on output content rather than parameter syntax, and no additional parameter semantics are needed.

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 uses a specific verb ('Return') and identifies a clear resource ('current UNL composition') with detailed content ('both published lists, overlap, expiry-days'). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like get_amendment_status or get_ledger_stats.

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?

No explicit guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The resource is implied by the name, but the description does not mention any exclusions or compare with siblings such as get_signed_snapshot or verify_snapshot_signature.

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