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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/openWorld, but the description adds real value: free, no wallet, no payment, no pending rows, and the null semantics for no-claim rows. It discloses the limit default (50) and cap (200). Return-shape detail is partly redundant with the existing output schema, 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 'FREE — THE TAPE,' which is good, but the body is dense and repetitive ('no wallet, no model guts' and 'No payment required' restate the same point). Multiple clauses on row semantics could be trimmed given an output schema already exists.

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 an output schema exists, the description needn't define return values, yet it goes further by explaining CHOICE vs PROBABILITY rows and no-claim labeling. Combined with the routing to pending-row siblings and the growth-loop workflow, an agent has enough to call it correctly.

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 0% and the single param (limit) is undocumented in schema, so the description must compensate — and it does, stating the default of 50 and the cap of 200. That fully covers the only parameter, though it doesn't mention the exclusiveMinimum constraint.

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 resource (the newest terminal chips / feed, newest-first) and clearly frames it as a read-only tape of resolved decisions. It distinguishes itself from pending-row siblings by pointing to tollbridge_blotter and tollbridge_open_clocks. The jargon 'chips'/'terminal' is opaque at first read, slightly blunting clarity.

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 the agent: use this feed for landed results, and go to tollbridge_blotter / tollbridge_open_clocks for open clocks. It also lays out the growth loop (feed → tollbridge_decision → tollbridge_get_resolution → land here). No explicit 'when not to use' beyond the pending-row exclusion, so a 4 rather than 5.

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