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

The annotations already establish that this is read-only and non-destructive, but the description adds important behavioral context: a declared role is not verified permission, and the tool does not authorize signing, payment, or execution. That caveat is material and not present in the structured annotations. It does not describe return behavior, but with annotations covering safety, this is a strong addition.

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 short and front-loads the core purpose. The row-shape detail, exclusion, reference URL, and authorization caveat are all relevant, though the external reference creates minor dependence on outside context.

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 tool with five parameters and no schema descriptions or output schema, the definition is incomplete: four parameter families are not explained. The external reference URL may help, but the description itself does not fully equip an agent to understand all inputs. The safety caveat helps, but the parameter documentation remains thin.

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%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It explains only the required agreements rows as having exactly id, kind, and parties, and leaves group, grants, policies, and expected_heads undocumented. This partially compensates for the schema gap but not enough for a higher score.

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 and resource: inspect caller-supplied role summaries and local authority evidence. It also clarifies the shape of each agreements row, which makes the tool's domain more concrete. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from nearby review/evidence siblings, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Usage is implied by 'Inspect caller-supplied role summaries and any supported local authority evidence,' and there is one explicit exclusion: 'Do not pass a contract-draft wrapper.' However, the description does not say when to choose this tool over covenant_review__evidence or covenant_review__review, nor does it name those alternatives.

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