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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states statelessness and byte-stability, which are meaningful behavioral traits, but it does not explicitly confirm read-only/no side effects, auth requirements, or rate limits. For a census tool mutation is unlikely, but the safety profile is not explicit.

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 sentences with no wasted words: the first fronts the purpose and output shape, the second gives parameter behavior and a statelessness guarantee. 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?

Without an output schema or annotations, the description must explain return values and behavior itself; it does sketch the returned counts and sectors and stateless behavior. But it omits details like default window size when limit is absent, the exact response format, and error semantics, leaving an agent with some uncertainty.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds valuable semantics: it explains the window concept tied to limit, the pin-vs-moving-head behavior for at_seq, and enumerates the lane values corresponding to source. This goes beyond the schema's bare property descriptions without restating them unnecessarily.

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 this is a census of what the corpus captured over a bounded window of sealed bonds, enumerating the per-lane counts and spatial sectors. This is a specific purpose that distinguishes it from generic query tools, though it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like corpus_bonds or corpus_coverage.

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 provides operational guidance on using at_seq to pin a byte-stable census versus omitting it to read the moving head, which is useful. However, it does not mention when to prefer this tool over siblings or any exclusion conditions, so tool-selection guidance is only implied.

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