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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, but the description adds material behavior beyond them: X-API-Key auth requirement, org-scoped (not a public explorer), unknown public keys return an empty list with total 0 rather than an error, and the exact return shape including decision_event_hash linkage.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then clearly labeled use/avoid sections and return/output notes. Dense but structured; only slightly long, and each sentence carries actionable information.

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 is no output schema, so the description's explicit return contract ({outcomes, total, next_cursor, has_next}) and the empty-list-on-unknown-key behavior fill the critical gap. Auth, scoping, ordering, paging, and edge cases are all covered.

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, but the description adds real meaning: it clarifies the tool does NOT accept agent_name and that public_key must come from a prior log_decision/log_outcome response or register_agent, and it explains that next_cursor should be echoed back as cursor for paging older.

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+resource (list outcome events for one agent by public key), plus scope (API key's org) and default ordering (newest first). It is clearly distinguishable from list_agent_decisions and get_proof without needing to open either schema.

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?

Explicit 'When to use' (audit recorded results, find an event_hash for get_proof, page without knowing hashes) and 'When NOT to use' with named sibling alternatives for each excluded case (list_agent_decisions, get_proof, log_decision/log_outcome). Routing is unambiguous.

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