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

Annotations indicate readOnly, idempotent, not open-world. The description adds that the record is hash-chained and signed before outcome, scored against an immutable board, and includes misses. It also states the return format (full record with outcomes and ledger root), providing transparent behavior.

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 sentences: first explains what the tool is and its process, second gives return and usage. Every word earns its place; no filler.

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 zero parameters, no output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description completely explains the tool's purpose and output. Siblings are unrelated, so no additional context needed.

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?

No parameters exist, so baseline 4 is appropriate. The description does not need to add parameter semantics as there are none.

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 states it provides Undertow's sealed forward-calls record, including the process of hash-chaining, signing, scoring, and keeping misses. It returns the full record with outcomes and the ledger root. This distinguishes it from siblings like depth_episodes or exit_cost.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use when asked whether Undertow's judgements can be trusted, and quote the misses as prominently as the hits.' This gives clear context for when to invoke and how to use the output.

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