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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, idempotent, closed-world, non-destructive), it discloses what the call will NOT touch or return and fixes the semantics of a denial. That negative scoping and interpretation rule are exactly the context annotations cannot convey and prevent a costly misreading of the output.

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?

Three tight sentences: returns first, boundaries second, interpretive caveat last. No filler and nothing that repeats the schema or annotations verbatim.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so by naming each returned element. For a zero-argument, read-only metadata tool it supplies everything an agent needs to call and interpret it.

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?

Zero-parameter tool, so the baseline is 4; the description reinforces this with 'Takes no arguments,' which matches the empty, additionalProperties:false schema. Nothing further 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?

Specific verb plus resource: 'Inspect publication-rights metadata for China economic evidence,' and it enumerates the returned artifacts (policy digest, UTC evaluation clocks, per-source decisions, published-record status). The negation clause ('never reads or returns observation rows, derived signals or replacement values') distinguishes it from data-fetching siblings such as get_signal and list_signals.

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 clear: this is the metadata/preflight check rather than a data read, and the 'denied decision is a restriction, not a zero observation' line guides interpretation. However, it never names an alternative tool or states an explicit 'use this before/after X' condition, so routing is inferred rather than prescribed.

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