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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only status check (reporting is non-destructive), and clearly states the output is a report on anchoring status. While it doesn't enumerate side effects, none are expected for a status check, which is adequately transparent.

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 two sentences, concise and to the point. It provides the essential purpose and a usage condition without superfluous detail.

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?

In the absence of an output schema, the description adequately conveys what the tool returns ('whether anchoring is currently working'), implying a boolean or status result. It is sufficient for a simple status check, though it could be more explicit about the exact return format.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly indicates no inputs are needed, which aligns with a simple status query.

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's function: 'Report whether anchoring is currently working.' This is a specific action on a specific resource (anchoring status), and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on status checks rather than archiving, fetching, or hashing.

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?

Explicit usage guidance is provided: 'Call this if a tool reports something stored but not anchored.' This tells the agent exactly when to invoke the tool, making the condition clear and actionable.

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