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

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is established. The description adds useful context about data provenance ('quoted from the modules that enforce them') and a trust expectation ('the code is the bug'), but it does not discuss authentication behavior, missing-parameter behavior, or response specifics beyond what the schema already provides.

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 compact and front-loaded with the endpoint, and the second sentence adds a meaningful trust property without wasted words. However, the terms 'GRITH-RIGHTS/1' and 'resident floor' are opaque and unexplained, which keeps it from being fully self-contained.

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?

The presence of an output schema, thorough parameter descriptions, and read-only annotations covers the operational essentials. The notable gaps are the lack of guidance on when to choose this over sibling cite_* tools and the unexplained jargon that an agent would need to interpret before confidently invoking it.

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%, and each parameter already has a rich explanation covering nonce origin, leave_token constraints, signature requirements, and key encoding. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 resource (GET /api/rights) and says it returns 'rights quoted from the modules that enforce them,' which conveys the basic purpose of retrieving rights. The 'resident floor' phrasing is cryptic, but the core resource and action are still identifiable enough to separate it from sibling tools at a high level.

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?

No explicit guidance is given about when to use this tool versus cite_law, cite_census, or other siblings. The agent must infer from the resource name alone that this is the rights endpoint, with no stated exclusions, alternatives, or context for when it should be preferred.

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