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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the tool is stateless, that at_seq controls reproducibility versus moving-head reads, and that mined_from is either LLM_WEIGHTS or LLVM_IR. However, it does not state permissions, side effects, rate limits, error behavior, or return shape.

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 three dense sentences that are front-loaded with the resource and source. It avoids filler, though the domain-specific terms are cryptic and the absence of an action verb slightly reduces immediate clarity.

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?

There are no annotations or output schema, so the description must carry more context than usual. It covers source, provenance, and state semantics well, but does not explain the return structure, pagination behavior, or how this corpus read relates to the many sibling corpus and verification tools.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3 regardless of description content. The description adds some meaning for at_seq by explaining reproducible reads across cells versus moving-head omission, but it does not elaborate on limit or sector beyond what the schema already provides.

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 names a specific resource and source: sealed bonds from the Affine.Earth corpus (GAIA_SPATIAL_BOND_WIRES). It does not state an explicit action verb, but the resource is clear enough to distinguish it from verify_* siblings. Sibling differentiation is limited, but the provenance details add useful specificity.

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 only usage guidance concerns at_seq: pin it for reproducibility or omit it to read the moving head. There is no guidance on when to choose corpus_bonds over sibling tools such as bond_presented_key or corpus_coverage. This is parameter-level guidance, not tool-selection guidance.

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