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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the data source (durable `evidence_ledger`, survives restart), the distinction between durable and provisional aggregators, and the fields each entry reports (is_provisional, per-field epistemic states, contradiction presence, active/retracted counts). It omits pagination, auth, or result-size behavior, keeping it from a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then behavior, then param detail. Every sentence contributes; the Args section is slightly formal but not wasteful. Appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be spelled out, yet the description still summarizes entry contents usefully. For a read-only list tool with minimal params this is close to complete, missing only operational details like pagination or limits.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the lone parameter — and it does: it names the parameter, marks it optional, specifies the UN/LOCODE format, and gives a concrete example ("BRSSZ"). It adds real meaning beyond the bare schema type.

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?

States a specific verb ("List") and resource ("durable shipment reconstructions") with a clear scope qualifier ("with an epistemic summary per field"), and explicitly names the sibling get_shipment_reconstruction as the drill-down counterpart, letting an agent distinguish it without opening either schema.

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 routes usage: this tool is for deciding which shipment to drill into, and get_shipment_reconstruction is the follow-up. Clear context but no explicit exclusions or prerequisites, so it falls just short of a 5.

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