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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the description adds useful context about the capsule being signed and the state being sanitized. It does not disclose invalid-signature behavior or the shape of the unpacked result, but the annotations cover the safety profile.

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?

One dense sentence front-loads the operation and resource, with every phrase serving a purpose. The terminology is compact but unexplained, which prevents a 5.

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?

For a single-parameter tool with strong safety annotations, the description is mostly sufficient, but it does not describe return values, error behavior, or how to choose this tool over verification/handoff siblings. An agent can infer the intent but not every operational detail.

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?

The description adds domain meaning to the single capsule parameter by identifying it as a signed NAIF continuity capsule, which is useful given 0% schema description coverage. It does not explain serialization or validity requirements beyond the schema's length constraints.

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?

Clearly states a specific action chain (verify and unpack) on a specific resource (a signed NAIF continuity capsule) and names the intended outcome (another agent can resume from its sanitized state). It is not a tautology and is distinguishable from siblings, though it does not explicitly contrast with verify_handoff_capsule.

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 'so another agent can resume' clause provides a concrete use context: this tool is for resuming an agent task from a signed continuity capsule. It does not state exclusions or explicitly point to sibling tools for pure verification or handoff, but the usage scenario is clear.

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