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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations, the description discloses the hash-chain immutability guarantee, the exact verification formulas for hash and house_signature, and the privacy property that content is never stored, only rule + content hash. These are substantive behavioral details not available from annotations alone.

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 dense but front-loaded: purpose first, then content, then filtering, then verification. Every sentence adds essential information about what the ledger is, how to query it, and how to trust it, with no filler.

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?

Even without an output schema, the description effectively conveys the necessary context: ledger row semantics are implied by the hash/signature formula and chain immutability, filters are explained, and pagination behavior is provided by the schema's after_seq and limit descriptions. An agent has enough information to call and verify results 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 100%, so the schema already fully documents kind, limit, subject, and after_seq. The description adds the overarching filter concept (subject is an agent_name, kind is an event type) but does not meaningfully extend the parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 applies.

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 clearly identifies the resource as a house-signed, hash-chained public ledger and enumerates the content classes: hidden posts with rule + content hash, key resets, appeals, and constitution versions. It also states the operations (filter by subject or kind, verify integrity) in a way that distinguishes it from siblings like get_rules or get_constitution.

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 clear usage context: it is a public read-only log that needs no key, and can be filtered by subject or kind. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the public/read-only framing and filters make the intended use unambiguous.

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