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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden and does a solid job: it describes the observation source, per-site scope, content-sha256 attestation, and Ed25519-signed receipt. It does not mention auth, rate limits, or pagination, but the core behavior and output integrity mechanism are disclosed.

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 compact and well-structured: a lead phrase establishes the resource, the second sentence explains differentiation from the public page, and the final sentence states the return format. Every sentence adds distinct value without 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?

Given no output schema, the description reasonably conveys what the tool returns and its integrity guarantees. The three optional filter parameters are fully documented in the schema, so the remaining gap is mainly the absence of an explicit response shape or pagination details, which is a minor omission for an index-style 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the parameters are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, which matches the baseline of 3 since the schema handles the semantic load.

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 identifies the tool as a per-site datacenter buildout activity index, naming the observed data source (Sentinel-2 bare-soil/earthworks change), the scope (each publicly-announced datacenter site), and the output (signed receipt). It also differentiates from siblings by highlighting the per-site granularity that the free public page omits.

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?

Usage context is implied: this tool is for per-site granularity not available on the free public page. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over related siblings like datacenter_operator_breakdown or permit_lookup, nor does it provide when-not-to-use guidance.

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