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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: 'It never invents a verdict' is a substantive guarantee about output fidelity, and 'no proof' signals the auth expectation.

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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then usage, then the behavioral guarantee, then the safety note. Every sentence carries distinct information with no padding.

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 not be described, and the description covers purpose, trigger, and behavioral fidelity. Minor gap: 'Read-only, no proof' sits in slight tension with the proof-related parameters (nonce, controller_signature) present in the schema, which could confuse an agent about whether auth is required.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds value the schema does not: it presents 'reason' and 'closedBy' as alternatives and gives a concrete format example ('FILTER.SPAM'), clarifying the either/or usage. The proof-related params are left to the schema.

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 ('quotes') and resource ('the published reason for a refusal or a filtered presentation'), making it immediately distinguishable from siblings like appeal or present_look. An agent can tell what it returns 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?

Explicitly states the triggering condition: 'Use it after a present_look or present_bed came back filtered,' naming the relevant sibling tools. It stops short of saying when NOT to use it (e.g., use appeal to contest a refusal rather than explain it), but the context is clear.

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