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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and does not meet it. It never states that this is a read-only operation, how results are capped by the limit parameter, whether results are paginated, or what prerequisites (auth, existing scan) are needed.

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 single sentence is short and front-loads the verb, but its brevity comes from omission rather than discipline. For a 9-parameter tool, one sentence is under-specification, not conciseness.

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?

A nine-parameter query tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage receives essentially no explanatory support from the description. Nothing an agent needs to invoke this correctly is present.

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 9 parameters, and the description explains none of them. Opaque fields such as plane, min_novelty, canonized_only, entity, and the origin enum (passed/veil_promoted/any) are left entirely undocumented, forcing the agent to guess semantics.

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 names a verb ("Query") and resources ("committed Vault corpus", "current Veil hold"), which is more than a tautology. However, the domain terms are undefined and it offers no differentiation from siblings like vara_get_scan, vara_list_scans, or vara_get_veil_state, so an agent cannot tell which query tool to pick.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus vara_get_scan, vara_list_scans, vara_run_scan, or vara_get_veil_state. The phrase "optionally the current Veil hold" hints at a scope choice but never states the condition that selects it.

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