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

The description asserts 'Idempotent on act_id — retries never double-consume budget', but the annotations declare idempotentHint: false. An agent relying on the description for retry safety would behave differently than one relying on the annotation, which is a direct conflict. The otherwise valuable disclosures (deny-by-default, budget consumption, audit-chain logging) do not offset a contradiction on the exact property the annotations already govern.

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 short sentences, zero filler, and the core operation is front-loaded before the safety and side-effect notes. Every clause contributes information an agent needs.

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 explained, but the 0% parameter coverage leaves three of four inputs undefined, and the idempotency claim conflicts with the annotation. For a mutation-capable, audit-producing tool with four undocumented parameters, this is materially incomplete.

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 description coverage is 0% across four parameters, so the description carries the full explanatory burden. It only illuminates act_id (as the idempotency key); covenant_id, scope, and amount_minor receive no meaning, format, or constraint information anywhere.

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 and resource: 'check ... a proposed act against a covenant', with the conditional side effect ('and if allowed, record') called out. It is clearly distinct from siblings like covenant_status or grant_covenant, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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?

'Deny-by-default' gives useful context about how the check resolves, and 'proposed act' implies it is a pre-execution gate. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not guidance, no mention of what happens on denial, and no routing to related tools such as covenant_status or verify_audit.

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