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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses two important boundaries: results only 'describe the supplied metadata' and the tool neither authenticates sources nor enforces native-store sanctuary access. That trust-boundary disclosure is genuinely useful and not derivable from the structured fields. It does not, however, explain the attest digest semantics or confirm the idempotent/no-side-effect profile declared in annotations.

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 lean sentences, both front-loaded: the operation first, then the trust-boundary caveat. No filler, and nothing repeats the schema.

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?

With six parameters, nested objects, and no output schema, the description should say more about what a resolve result contains (facts/citations) and what attest returns; currently only the schema carries that. The disclaimer sentence is valuable, but the tool's central contract behavior remains under-explained for its complexity.

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 100%, covering mode, attest, proposal, question, assertions, and request_json in more detail than the description does. The description adds no syntax, mutual-exclusivity, or format guidance beyond what the schema already states, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 specific verb pair (resolve/verify) and a specific resource ('bounded caller-asserted temporal assertions'), so an agent knows the operation class. However, it gives no hint of how it differs from close siblings such as sutra.canon, sutra.route, or memory.temporal_query, and the title 'Catuṣkoṭi Answer Contract' adds opacity rather than clarity.

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?

The two modes imply when each applies, and the schema clarifies that 'verify' consumes a proposal, but the description itself states no selection criteria between resolve and verify and no when-not/exclusions against the many adjacent sutra.* and memory.* temporal tools. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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