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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so 'Read-only' is largely redundant. However 'no proof' adds genuine value: it signals that the controller_signature/nonce proof parameters are unnecessary for this call, which is not stated anywhere in the schema. That single addition keeps it at a solid 3 against the lower annotation-backed bar.

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?

Two tight sentences plus a terse behavioral tag, with the return content front-loaded before usage and the safety note. Efficient overall, though the leading metaphor slightly delays a plain reading of what is returned.

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-value detail is not needed here, and annotations carry the safety profile. Purpose, the cite_law alternative, and the 'no proof' note cover what an agent needs to invoke it correctly, though the 'resident floor' terminology could be clearer.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all four auth parameters. 'no proof' hints that the proof-related params are not required, adding a little meaning, but the description does not clarify the roles of nonce, leave_token, or controller_public_key beyond the schema's own text. Baseline 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?

States a specific action and resource — quoting resident rights 'from the module that enforces it' — and explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling cite_law. The metaphorical framing ('resident floor', 'what the city owes you') is understandable but not as crisp as a plain description would be.

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 a clear when-to-use ('to know what the city owes you') and names the alternative (cite_law for the full law). No explicit when-not or exclusions beyond that, so it stops short of the top tier.

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