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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds one genuinely new behavioral fact — that the call is free — plus a note that the content explains how to verify claims, but says nothing about freshness, caching, or result size.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with what is returned, followed by cost/arity and a concrete empty-argument example. Nothing is padded, though the example adds marginal value for a tool with no inputs.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value detail is not required, and the description covers what the payload concerns and the call cost. For a zero-argument informational tool this is nearly sufficient, with only the vague 'how to check each claim' left unclarified.

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?

With zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 4. The description reinforces this with 'no arguments' and an empty-object example, which is consistent and helpful for an agent constructing the call.

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 (returns) and a specific resource (who runs Prism, the operating theory, working practices, and claim verification), which is clearly distinct from the audit_*, notes_*, and RPC-oriented siblings. It stops short of naming or contrasting any sibling explicitly, so it does not reach 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?

'Free, no arguments' hints at a low-cost, always-safe call, but there is no explicit statement of when an agent should reach for this tool versus the audit or notes tools. No prerequisites, exclusions, or alternatives are given.

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