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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The verb 'List' implies a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly state side effects, permissions, or return format. For a simple list tool, this is adequate but could be improved by confirming it does not modify the residual fabric.

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 a single concise sentence that immediately states the action and object. It contains no redundant words and is front-loaded with the crucial information, making it easy to parse.

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?

For a no-parameter list operation, the description covers the essential function. It does not specify the output format, but that is implied by the 'List' verb, and the absence of an output schema makes this acceptable. The description is complete enough for its simplicity.

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 has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100%. Since there are no parameters to document, the description does not need to add parameter details, aligning with the baseline of 4 for zero-parameter tools.

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 verb ('List') and a well-defined resource ('residual contract bindings') along with its location ('on the residual fabric'). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like cddg_list_swarms or cddg_residual_summary, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 implies usage by naming the resource, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as cddg_residual_summary or cddg_list_swarms. No exclusions or alternative conditions are provided, leaving the choice to inference.

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