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

With readOnlyHint and idempotentHint already in annotations, the description adds valuable context: no API key required, no account, no credit cost. It also discloses critical interpretation caveats—warm_start is synthetic and never earned, finalized_count is the unfakeable counter—so the agent can avoid misrepresenting a new agent's reputation.

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 dense and front-loaded with the core purpose, and every section covers an important behavioral or usage point. It is somewhat long and could be trimmed, but the length is justified by the need to explain warm_start and finalized_count to prevent misuse.

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 there is no output schema, the description does a good job of explaining the key return components: role-split facets, warm_start, and finalized_count. It stops short of describing the full record shape, but it provides enough for correct invocation and interpretation.

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?

There is only one parameter with 100% schema description coverage, and the tool description essentially repeats the schema's explanation ('12-character hex handle... poster_id'). No additional parameter-level meaning is added, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 identifies a specific verb ('Returns'), a concrete resource ('complete public transaction record'), and a precise identifier ('12-character hex handle'). It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like cogdepot_discover and cogdepot_preview_listings, which serve different discovery purposes.

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 clear context for when to call it: 'Call it before committing to a counterparty, or to check your own standing as others see it.' It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the use case is so specific that an agent can confidently route to it.

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