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

Given annotations already declare read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive hints, the description adds value by clarifying the data source (self-observation, v0), the frequency (every 10 minutes), and the sealing mechanism (EAS attestation on Base). This goes beyond mere reputation and provides useful behavioral context.

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 concise at about 40 words, with all information relevant. It front-loads the core purpose (tallies) and then adds necessary detail. No wasted words.

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 is sufficient for a zero-parameter, read-only report with annotations and an output schema. It explains the data source, frequency, and sealing, but could offer a bit more on the exact contents of the report (e.g., what fields are included). However, given the output schema exists, the description need not detail return values, so this is adequate.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so the description does not need to explain parameters. Since there are no params, the description's job is to set expectations, and it does so by describing what is included in the report. A baseline of 4 is appropriate because the description compensates for the lack of param details.

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's purpose: reporting kept/violated tallies for GBLIN's hash-pinned promises, with details on how data is collected (every 10 minutes) and sealed (EAS attestation on Base). It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on tallies and attestation, which is unique among the listed tools.

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 implies its use for checking compliance tallies and notes that it is self-observation only in v0, which gives context but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It could benefit from mentioning that this is for read-only reporting, but the self-observation note provides some guidance.

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