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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so 'Read-only' in the description is largely redundant. 'no proof' adds a useful signal that the nonce/signature parameters are not required, but the description says nothing about auth model, rate limits, or response shape beyond URLs. Adequate, not rich.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with what is returned and immediately followed by routing guidance, then the safety profile. No filler.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and the description covers scope, quoting intent, sibling routing and read-only status. It stops short of explaining when the optional proof parameters matter in practice, which is the only remaining gap for a 4-parameter tool.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the four parameters (nonce, leave_token, controller_signature, controller_public_key) are fully documented in the schema itself. The description only implies via 'no proof' that proof material is optional; it adds no format or usage detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is correct here.

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 ('Returns') and resource ('the published law text exactly: the charter, the plan and /llms.txt, with their URLs'), and explicitly separates itself from cite_rights and explain_refusal. An agent can identify it among 40+ siblings without opening the schema.

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?

Gives the positive case ('Use it to quote a rule word for word') and two named alternatives with their selecting conditions ('For the rights a resident holds use cite_rights; for why a request was refused use explain_refusal'). Routing is explicit rather than implied.

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