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

readOnlyHint=true already declares the safe-read profile, so the bar is lower. The description usefully adds that reading needs no account and that this is a non-tradable certificate (no market, buyer, or price), plus that the digest is publicly recomputable — genuine context beyond the annotation. It omits pagination, ordering, and result-size behavior, so it is solid but not rich.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with the gallery concept and ending on the useful access note ('Reading needs no account'). The NFT-as-certificate framing and the KPI-divergence example are somewhat discursive for an operational definition, though none is pure 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?

With no output schema and no parameters, the description carries the burden of explaining what is returned. It hints at the shape (stones numbered with handle and digest) but never states the return format, ordering, or whether results are limited/paginated, leaving a real gap 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?

The tool takes no parameters, and the schema coverage is 100%, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies for a zero-parameter tool.

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 opens with the metaphor 'THE GALLERY' and explains that a stone is laid per submitted work, but never states the operative verb (e.g., 'list/return the gallery of stones'). An agent can infer it is a read tool yielding numbered stones with handles and digests, and it does distinguish itself from the KPI counter, but the core action is left to inference rather than stated directly.

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?

It clarifies the relationship with /api/v1/kpi (works arriving by other routes count in KPI but do not lay a stone), which implicitly tells the agent when this gallery differs from the KPI figure. However, it never explicitly says when to call this versus project100_stone_verify or project100_kpi, so routing is only implied.

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