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

With no annotations the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose two real traits: statelessness and that pinning at_seq yields byte-stable (deterministic) output while omitting it reads the moving head. It omits permissions, any write/read safety statement (implied only by "Census"), and failure/limit behavior, so it is adequate but incomplete.

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, purpose front-loaded, no filler, and the stateless/at_seq contract is placed last where it reads naturally. Dense jargon ("sealed bonds", "exact-orbit-closure") slightly reduces scannability but the size is appropriate.

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?

No output schema and no annotations, so the description must stand alone; it does explain the return shape (counts per lane plus spatial sectors) and the stateless contract, which is the core an agent needs. It leaves key terms ("sealed bonds", "exact-orbit-closure") undefined and gives no error/empty-window behavior, so it is minimally sufficient rather than complete.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already defines limit, at_seq and source. The description reinforces the lane filter and adds the determinism framing for at_seq, but adds no syntax or format beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb ("Census") plus resource (corpus over sealed bonds) and enumerates the returned dimensions: per-lane bond count, exact-orbit-closure count, and distinct spatial sectors. Clear on its own, but it never distinguishes itself from the sibling census-like tools corpus_bonds and 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?

The only usage-style guidance is about at_seq ("pin at_seq for a byte-stable census... or omit it to read the moving head"), which is parameter behavior, not when-to-use-this-tool guidance. It gives no condition for choosing it over corpus_bonds or corpus_coverage, so an agent has no routing signal.

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