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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, closed-world, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by enumerating the exact contents returned (Merkle root, RS256 public key URL, snapshot date, 12/12 CI self-test reference), which tells the agent what verification material is available; it does not mention the behavior when no snapshot exists, but that is a minor gap given the annotation coverage.

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?

A single dense sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then lists the returned fields without any filler. Every clause earns its place.

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 no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the returned metadata fields. It stops short of describing error or empty-snapshot behavior, but for a zero-parameter, read-only retrieval tool this is largely sufficient.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to document and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly does not invent any inputs.

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 verb (retrieve) and resource (cryptographic snapshot metadata for the current pricing snapshot), with concrete field names. Slightly misaligned with the tool name 'audit_evidence' — it actually returns metadata rather than the evidence payload itself, which could cause mild ambiguity.

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 phrase 'for the current pricing snapshot' implies the scope in which this tool applies, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of when not to use it, and no indication of alternatives for historical snapshots. Sibling tools are in unrelated domains, so no routing is strictly needed.

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