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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that records were sealed/signed before outcomes and that misses are retained, which is useful context beyond annotations, but it does not explain verification, ordering, or whether the ledger root is intended for external audit.

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?

It is brief and avoids bloat, but the two fragments are cryptic rather than front-loaded and precise. 'Calls sealed/signed before outcomes' reads like internal shorthand and leaves the primary return concept unclear.

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 and no parameters, the description should carry the burden of explaining what the returned record contains. It lists key fields (hits/misses, decided counts, ledger root) but does not define them or describe the record's structure, completeness, or verification purpose.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics burden and the baseline of 4 applies. The description does not need to explain input arguments.

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 indicates this returns a sealed record of calls made before outcomes, including hits/misses, decided counts, and a ledger root. However, 'Calls sealed/signed before outcomes' is compressed and ambiguous, and it does not distinguish this tool from siblings such as depth_episodes or market_corpus_context.

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 only usage-like instruction is 'Report hits and misses together,' which is vague and does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no exclusion or prerequisite guidance despite many sibling tools that may overlap in domain.

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