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

Even with readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint already declared, the description adds valuable behavioral detail: it lists the exact stages in order, explains that absent evidence is reported as absent with a reason, and reveals provenance details such as three independent signing keys. This substantially exceeds the annotation baseline.

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 two sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the tool's purpose and enumerates the derivation chain compactly; the second adds a key behavioral trait and usage guidance. Every clause earns its place.

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 read-only trace tool with one well-documented parameter and an output schema, the description covers purpose, ordering, evidence-absence behavior, and when to use it. No critical operational context is missing.

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%, and the task_id parameter is already well documented in the schema as the ID of a compile that produced a statement. The description does not need to add parameter-level detail and does not attempt to, so the baseline score applies.

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 precise purpose: it shows the complete derivation chain behind a compiled statement, with the steps in order. It explicitly frames the tool as answering how a result was reached, clearly distinguishing it from tools that report what the result is.

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 last sentence provides a clear usage trigger: use this tool when someone asks how a result was reached rather than what it was. It does not name a specific alternative tool, but the 'rather than what' contrast gives useful routing guidance.

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