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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds only that filtering is optional and what epoch 0 means; it says nothing about result ordering, completeness, or pagination behavior.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the optional-filter note and the epoch hint come in the right order. It is not padded, though it is arguably over-compressed for an undocumented domain concept.

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 described, and annotations carry the safety profile. Still, with 0% schema coverage the definition leaves the core concept 'genesis record' and the epoch domain unexplained, which is a meaningful gap for selecting this over list_artifacts.

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%, so the description must compensate for the single epoch parameter. It explains one value (0 = founding cohort) and that the parameter is optional, but leaves the valid range and the meaning of other epochs undefined.

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 (list) and resource (genesis records), which is more informative than the bare tool name list_records. However, it does not distinguish this from the sibling list_artifacts or explain how genesis records relate to register_genesis, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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?

'optionally by epoch' implies the filtering condition, and '(0 = founding cohort)' hints at a use case, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives such as list_artifacts or lineage.

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