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

Annotations only say it is not read-only, is open-world, non-idempotent and non-destructive; the description adds substantive context beyond that — it makes a live outbound call to the agent's endpoint, has a prerequisite gate, produces a credential on pass, and requires a Bearer token (NOVARAIL_AGENT_KEY). The external-call and credential-issuance side effects are exactly the kind of disclosure the annotations cannot convey.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the mechanism, then prerequisite, then auth. Dense jargon ('observed-provenance') but 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?

With no output schema and 0% parameter coverage, the description should explain what a pass/fail result looks like and what the parameters do. It covers behavior, prerequisite and auth well but leaves result shape and all four parameters opaque.

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 0% and all four parameters (agent_id, task, context, deep) are documented only by type. The description explains none of them — notably 'deep' and how 'task'/'context' are used in the relay call — so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

Names a specific operation and its mechanism: NovaRail calls the agent's proven endpoint, observes real output, and issues a relay_verified credential on pass. 'Relay check' plus 'control_verified' prerequisite distinguishes it somewhat from siblings like run_checks and control_proof, though the relationship to those is not spelled out.

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?

It gives one hard prerequisite ('Requires control_verified'), which is genuinely useful gating context, but never says when to pick this over sibling tools such as run_checks or control_proof, nor when not to call it.

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