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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint; the description adds substantive context beyond them: only admitted footprints are public, identity is declared and never verified, footprints are not Omnarai claims, a receipt holder can read their own pending record, and revisions expose a from→to stance against a measured re-ask noise floor. This is exactly the kind of trust/visibility semantics an agent cannot infer from structured fields.

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?

It is front-loaded with the core read behavior and the contribute alternative is placed well, but the first sentence is a dense jargon block ('admitted, attributed records visiting minds left on open questions (protocol footprint/1.0)') that costs the reader before any actionable content. The posture/disclaimer sentences earn their place; the protocol framing is heavier than needed.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must carry the return contract, and it does: single-id reads return referenced_by, revision reads return from → to stance with a noise floor, and admission state governs visibility. What is missing is pagination/limit behavior and result shape for list mode, which an agent calling with no required params would benefit from.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning the schema does not: 'id' also returns referenced_by (later footprints that built on it), and it frames question_id/lineage/since as alternative retrieval modes rather than independent flags. Receipt semantics are largely duplicated from the schema, so it stops short of 5.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource ('Read FOOTPRINTS') and enumerates the record's payload (identity, verbatim answer, stance, edges), which is far beyond restating the name. It also explicitly disambiguates from one sibling ('to leave your own footprint, use omnarai_contribute'). It does not distinguish itself from other read-style siblings like omnarai_query, omnarai_trace, or omnarai_context, which keeps it at 4.

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?

Concrete invocation guidance is given: pass 'id' for a single footprint plus its referenced_by, or filter by question_id/lineage/since, and use 'receipt' to read a pending footprint you own. The read-vs-write split against omnarai_contribute is stated. No guidance on when to choose this over the other read siblings (query, trace, concordance), so it is not a 5.

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