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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose whether this is a read-only operation, any permission requirements, or output format. It only restates the core query without adding behavioral context beyond the name.

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 description is a single sentence of eight words, with no unnecessary words. However, the phrase 'authoritative why' is jargon that may require prior domain knowledge, slightly reducing clarity.

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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description is insufficiently complete. It does not explain return values, parameter usage beyond name, or when to invoke this tool. For a four-parameter audit tool, the agent would need more context to invoke it correctly.

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 50% (two of four parameters lack descriptions). The description only implies that 'name' refers to a capability, which the schema already states. It does not compensate for undocumented npub, as_at_ms, or dpop_token parameters.

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 the tool answers a specific question: who authorized a capability's authoritative why. The verb 'Answer' and resource 'capability's authoritative why' convey the purpose. It distinguishes from sibling audit tools by focusing on the authorizer of the rationale rather than the rationale itself, though the phrasing is somewhat jargon-heavy.

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 description gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like cypher_audit_why_exists or cypher_authorize_capability_why. Usage is only implied by the question it answers, with no exclusions or recommended scenarios.

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