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

While annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint=false, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, the description adds meaningful behavioral context: it does not invent a second census clock and occupancy remains unchanged. This goes beyond the structured annotations by clarifying actual side-effect-free behavior.

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 the core output and followed by useful clarifications. Every sentence earns its place; there is no redundant or filler content.

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 description, combined with the fully covered input schema and output schema, gives an agent everything needed to call and interpret the tool. It clarifies time zones, data source, non-mutation, and scope boundary. No critical behavioral or invocation details are missing.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100%, with detailed descriptions for nonce, leave_token, controller_signature, and controller_public_key. The tool description itself does not add parameter-level meaning, but the schema fully handles that, so the baseline 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 clearly states the tool returns wall time in UTC and America/Chicago, along with the city's last published quotedAt from city.json. The phrase 'Does not invent a second census clock' explicitly distinguishes it from census-related sibling tools, and 'Occupancy unchanged' clarifies its scope.

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 description gives clear context about what the tool provides—current wall time in specific zones and a published quotedAt—so an agent can infer when to use it. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the purpose is specific enough to avoid obvious misuse.

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