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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/destructive/openWorld, so the bar is lower, yet the description adds genuinely new context: free, keyless, nothing to sign, plus a public mirror URL for verification. The liveness claim ('recomputed this moment') and the lapse behavior are useful operational traits an agent cannot get from annotations. It stops short of describing response shape or rate limits.

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 core definition and the re-check guidance are front-loaded, and the lapse caveat earns its place. The closing cost/signer sentence partially restates 'Free, keyless, read-only,' which is mild redundancy, and the jargon density (settled packets, accepted proof, per condition) slows parsing.

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 an output schema present, the description need not explain return values, and with strong annotations the safety profile is covered; what remains—what Standing means, when it lapses, and that access is free and keyless—is all stated. The main gap is that domain terms like 'Unread', 'settled packets', and 'per condition' are used without definition for a non-expert agent.

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 100% and the single `place` parameter already carries an example ('a city, address fragment, or venue name'), so baseline 3 applies. The prose says 'one place' but adds no resolution or matching semantics beyond the schema.

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 names a specific resource and operation: a live, per-condition Standing reading for a single place, recomputed from settled packets with accepted proof. It is clearly a point-read rather than a mutation or preparation step. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the nearby place_status sibling, so an agent must infer the boundary between two similarly-named place tools.

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?

It gives a concrete use case: 'this is the reading to re-check after funding or completing work at a place,' which tells the agent when to call it in a workflow. It also warns that Standing lapses when work stops, implying freshness matters. No explicit when-not-to-use or named alternative (e.g., place_status) is offered.

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