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

There are no annotations (e.g., readOnlyHint, destructiveHint) and the description does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, mutating, or has side effects. The term 'snapshot' implies a read operation, but this is not explicit, and the 'FREE' note is irrelevant to behaviour.

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 extremely concise, using a compact list format to convey the output components. Every word adds value, and there is no redundancy or fluff. It is perfectly sized for the 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?

Since there is no output schema, the description must convey what the tool returns, and it does so by listing the key fields (version, uptime, WAL entry count, SHA-256 chain head). It is sufficient for an agent to know what to expect, though it does not discuss error conditions or formatting.

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 has zero parameters, so the schema coverage is effectively 100%. The description does not need to explain parameters, and it does not add any parameter-specific meaning. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate since there is no parameter information to augment.

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 provides a 'trust/health snapshot' and lists the specific components (version, uptime, WAL entry count, SHA-256 chain head). It is specific about what the tool reports, though it lacks an explicit verb describing the action.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools. It does not mention typical use cases or scenarios where this status check would be preferred, leaving the agent to infer from the name and context.

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