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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond these: the reading is 'recomputed this moment from settled packets with accepted proof', it 'LAPSES when the work stops', and 'Unread is an honest beginning, not a failure'. It also notes the tool is 'free, keyless, read-only', adding access details. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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?

The description is compact: four sentences that define the tool, state when to use it, clarify acceptable semantics of 'Unread', and provide access details. Every sentence contributes meaningful information, and the core definition is front-loaded. There is no redundancy or 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?

With one parameter, rich annotations, and an output schema, the description covers the tool's core behavior, use case, and access model. The only notable gap is that domain terms like 'settled packets' and 'per condition' are not expanded, which could leave an agent uncertain about the exact computation semantics. Still, it gives enough context for a confident call.

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 100% for the single 'place' parameter, and the schema already explains it as 'a city, address fragment, or venue name'. The description's mention of 'one place' and the public URL '?place=…' adds only marginal context and no new semantics or examples beyond what the schema provides. Therefore, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific action ('live reading') and resource ('one place'), with a clear scope of output: 'Standing (Unread or Read today)'. The title reinforces the purpose, and the focus on a single place differentiates it from broader tools like work_status or board_stats. However, it relies heavily on domain-specific jargon ('settled packets with accepted proof') and does not explicitly name any sibling tool it should not be confused with.

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 description gives a concrete usage context: 'the reading to re-check after funding or completing work at a place', and explains that Standing 'LAPSES when the work stops'. This helps an agent decide when to call it. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools, so it lacks the exclusionary guidance of the highest-scoring examples.

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