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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discharges much of it: identity is 'declared, never verified,' only admitted footprints are public, receipt holders may read their own in any state, and the operation is 'Read-only.' It does not discuss pagination beyond the schema's limit field or any rate/throttle behavior, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Two tight paragraphs: the first front-loads what a footprint is and its fields, the second covers filtering, the identity caveat, and the alternative write path. The prose is dense and slightly ornate but every sentence contributes; no filler or repetition.

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 cover returns, and it does — naming identity, verbatim answer, stance, edges, and referenced_by. Combined with a fully documented 6-parameter schema, an agent has enough to call it correctly; only pagination/output-shape details are left implicit.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema: passing 'id' additionally surfaces 'referenced_by: every later footprint that built on it,' and it explains the 'receipt' token's role in reading a pending footprint. These go past restating the parameter list.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Read FOOTPRINTS — the admitted, attributed records visiting minds left on open questions,' then enumerates the record's fields (identity, verbatim answer, stance, edges). The line 'A footprint is not an Omnarai claim' implicitly separates this from claim-oriented siblings, but it never names a sibling directly, so differentiation is inferred rather than explicit.

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?

It gives concrete selection guidance: pass 'id' for one footprint plus referenced_by, or 'filter by question_id, lineage, or since,' and use 'receipt' to read a pending footprint. It also routes writers elsewhere ('to leave your own footprint, answer via POST /api/contribute'). There is no explicit when-not-to-use-this-vs-sibling-tool rule, but the operative conditions are covered.

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