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

With zero annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose one important trait — results are truncated and never complete — but says nothing about result ordering, whether reads are safe, or how an agent is expected to walk the dataset given there is no cursor parameter, only epoch bounds and a limit.

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?

Two short sentences with the resource and its filter dimensions front-loaded; nothing is padded. The opening is a noun fragment rather than a verb phrase, which costs a little clarity but no length.

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?

Four undocumented parameters, no annotations, and no output schema mean the description is the only source of behavioral detail — and it supplies two sentences. An agent cannot tell from this how results are ordered, how large a page is by default, or how to continue past the truncation the description itself warns about.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It maps two of the four parameters to concepts ("key" for keyId, "epoch range" for minEpoch/maxEpoch), which is real added value, but it says nothing about the limit parameter, default paging size, or whether epoch bounds are inclusive.

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 fragment "Signals, filterable by key and epoch range" identifies the resource and its two filter dimensions, but supplies no verb and no scope statement beyond that. It does not distinguish this tool from the sibling z1n_get_attestable_signals, which an agent could easily confuse with a plain signal listing.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this versus z1n_get_attestable_signals or z1n_get_key, and no prerequisites. The only usage-adjacent hint is "Never returns full history," which implies paging but never says how or when to page.

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