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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful context beyond those annotations: it is evidence-only, separates evidence sources, exposes non-test usage counts, and explicitly excludes synthetic scores. This helps an agent understand what kind of data it will receive.

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 dense sentence that front-loads the key identity ('FREE evidence-only reliability view') and then packs the distinguishing behavioral details into a compact clause. Every phrase earns its place.

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, read-only evidence tool with strong annotations, the description gives enough context for an agent to select and invoke it. It does not describe the exact output shape, but there is no output schema and the description conveys the core content of the view.

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 and schema coverage is 100%, so there is no parameter-semantic gap to fill. The description does not need to explain parameters, and it does not introduce any ambiguity about inputs.

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 states a specific purpose: an evidence-only reliability view that separates external settlement evidence from controlled/unattributed evidence and exposes non-test usage counts without synthetic scores. This clearly distinguishes it from scoring or quote-oriented siblings, though it uses nouns like 'view' rather than an explicit verb such as 'get' or 'retrieve'.

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 phrase 'FREE evidence-only reliability view' implies it is for callers needing raw evidence rather than synthetic scores, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative. Sibling differentiation is left mostly to inference.

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