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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and closed-world behavior, so the description adds useful context: report counts, missed-window status, directory-specific conduct records, and the explicit 'lists, never ranks' guarantee. It stops short of describing pagination or full return shape, but adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond annotations.

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?

Three sentences, each front-loaded and purposeful. The scope, directory modifier, and alternative sibling are presented in order of importance with no wasted words.

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 carries the burden of explaining return values, and it does so by listing report counts, missed-window status, and directory conduct records. Gaps remain around ordering, pagination, or exact result shape, but the core read-only listing contract is clear.

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 single parameter has 0% schema description coverage, and the description compensates by explaining that listed=true narrows results to the DIRECTORY. It does not explicitly state the implication of listed=false, but the default behavior is reasonably inferable.

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 states a specific resource ('the public register: every vow ever taken') and scope ('with report counts and missed-window status'), and explicitly distinguishes it from the sibling read_ledger for a single agent's record. The 'Lists, never ranks' line makes the operation unambiguous.

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 explains the effect of listed=true (narrowing to the directory) and names the alternative read_ledger for one agent's full record. However, it does not contrast with other possibly related siblings like vow_listing, leaving some inference required.

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