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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it actually discloses real traits: the sample is bounded (up to 1024, bound restated in the reply), roster-free cell discovery from written subjects rather than a table, and that the tool follows a moving head and is explicitly not pinnable. It stops short of stating read-only status, permissions, or rate limits, but the disclosed constraints are substantive.

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 purpose is front-loaded, which is good, but the body is a single dense run-on of em-dash fragments and specialized vocabulary that resists quick parsing. It is information-rich but not efficiently readable.

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, the description must describe returns, and it does sketch the shape (per-target/per-cell counts, bounded decoded sample, standing message count). For a zero-required, one-optional-parameter query tool that is adequate, but the opaque terminology leaves an agent unsure exactly what a cell or a standing shard cursor means.

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 single cursor_sample parameter is already fully documented in the schema, making the baseline 3 correct. The description's 'bounded decoded sample' phrasing corroborates the bound but adds no new syntax or default beyond what the schema states.

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 (fleet-wide mining coverage from the KV cursor bucket) and enumerates what it reports (per-target/per-cell cursor counts, a decoded sample, bond-stream message count). However, the phrasing is dense internal jargon, and it never distinguishes itself from the nearby sibling corpus_bonds, so an agent must guess at the boundary between them.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternative tool is named even though corpus_bonds sits right next to it in the roster. The 'not pinnable' note is a behavioral caveat, not routing advice.

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