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

The annotations already establish that this is a safe read-only, idempotent operation. Beyond that, the description adds meaningful context about the comparison being performed and the categories of returned data, including agreement between local manifests and chain commitments.

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 definition is one dense sentence with no wasted filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded. The parenthetical and em-dash list add necessary detail, though the sentence is compact enough to be slightly hard to parse at first glance.

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?

Given that there are no parameters, annotations cover the safety profile, and an output schema exists, the description is sufficiently complete. It briefly but clearly establishes what data the tool surfaces and what relationship it checks.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to explain beyond the schema. The baseline for a zero-parameter tool is 4.

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 that the tool returns the cell's built document manifest and the corresponding on-chain commitment data, including whether they agree. It is specific about resources and fields, but does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings such as cell_status.

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?

Usage is implied by the description: use it to inspect document build state versus chain state. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and does not name alternatives for similar status checks.

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