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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It does not disclose the tool's own behavior (e.g., read-only, static, no side effects) – instead it describes rules of the subject (agent_standing). The content is informative but doesn't clarify that this tool itself is a non-mutating spec lookup. The 'nothing written to the registry' refers to the subject, not this tool.

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 a single dense sentence that efficiently lists all covered topics in a structured, comma/semicolon-separated manner. It is front-loaded with the core purpose ('What agent_standing measures and how to verify one') and then enumerates specifics. No redundant words, though it could be slightly more readable with bullet points.

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?

For a spec tool with no parameters and an existing output schema, the description covers a wide range of relevant aspects (evidence tiers, states, grading rationale, layout, signer, rules). It gives an agent a good sense of what the tool will provide. However, it doesn't clarify the return format or whether the tool returns structured data vs. prose; the output schema exists but is not elaborated in the description.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. There is no parameter meaning to add; the description appropriately focuses on the spec content rather than parameter details, as none exist.

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 indicates that the tool explains agent_standing, listing the topics covered. However, it doesn't explicitly state the tool's action (e.g., 'returns the specification') – it reads more like the spec content itself. The name 'standing_spec' and sibling 'agent_standing' help disambiguate, but the description could be more explicit about being a reference/spec tool.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't say 'Use this to understand agent_standing' or compare with 'agent_standing'. The usage is implied as a knowledge tool, but an agent might not know whether to call this or 'agent_standing' directly. The description lacks any 'when-not' or alternative routing.

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