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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does substantial work: it declares read-only/no-side-effect behavior, names the three required environment settings, and states that the tenant comes from configuration rather than an argument. It also describes the OK/REFUSED/UNAVAILABLE outcome model and that failures surface as UNAVAILABLE rather than fabricated data, though it omits rate limits and what the supplied records are used for beyond replay.

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 scope constraint is front-loaded, which is good, but the no-side-effects point is restated three times ("executes nothing", "Read-only view... writes, signs and executes nothing"), padding a short description with redundancy.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description needn't explain return values, yet it does enumerate the status codes as useful behavioral context. The significant gap is the undocumented request object, which is the one thing an agent must construct in order to call the tool.

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 is a free-form nested object with additionalProperties true and 0% schema description coverage, and the description never explains what fields the request object should carry. "The records you supply" hints at content but gives no structure, so the agent must guess the request shape.

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?

"Replay of a decision's evidence path over the records you supply" gives a specific verb (replay) and resource (a decision's evidence path), which separates it from the plain evidence getters in the sibling list. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with get_decision_evidence or gate_decision, so the agent must infer the boundary.

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 description establishes a negative scope (nothing is written, signed, or executed) and a caveat that a readout is not a compliance finding, which helps the agent avoid treating output as authoritative. It never states a positive when-to-use condition or names an alternative tool for the adjacent tasks, so routing is only implied.

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