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

The annotations already establish that this is a read-only, non-open-world operation. The description adds that the result includes readiness and a contract version, but it does not explain possible readiness values, error behavior, authentication needs, or response format, so behavioral disclosure remains thin.

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 compact sentence with no filler, and the core status information is front-loaded. It does not waste words or bury the purpose in unnecessary detail.

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 zero-parameter status tool, invocation risk is low, and the description names the two main outputs: readiness and contract version. Since there is no output schema, however, the description could do more to clarify the return format or what 'ready' actually means, leaving a meaningful gap for result interpretation.

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?

There are no parameters, which is the baseline for a 4 under the scoring rules. The schema is fully self-contained, and no additional parameter meaning is needed.

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 the tool returns Recta's readiness to evaluate and its contract version, which is a clear purpose beyond the title alone. It does not differentiate this from siblings such as recta_about or recta_service_descriptor, so an agent must still infer why this status endpoint is preferable in a given situation.

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 phrase 'ready to evaluate' implies a preflight or health-check use case, giving some implied guidance. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no when-not-to-use guidance, and no stated alternative among the sibling tools.

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