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

With annotations already declaring readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, the description adds substantial context beyond that: it explains the content composition, includes cryptographic anchoring and a resume_sha256, and clarifies that 'Absent means no record, not a negative finding.' This is exactly the kind of semantic and interpretative detail an agent needs for a read-only history tool. No annotation contradiction exists.

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 three sentences with no filler, front-loaded with the return action and resource. Every clause earns its place by specifying content, interpretation, or cryptographic detail. It is dense but appropriately sized for a complex read tool.

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?

The description covers what the résumé contains, its cryptographic anchoring, and how to interpret absence, and an output schema exists to carry return-value details. The main remaining gap is usage relative to sibling tools — it does not say when to call this instead of nenrin_witness or nenrin_ledger_entry. Otherwise, an agent has enough to call 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 100% — the single endpoint parameter includes a clear string description with an example URL. The tool description does not add syntax or format details beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is correct when the schema does the heavy lifting and the description adds no parameter-level meaning.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: 'Return the NENRIN résumé of an agent or MCP endpoint' and enumerates exactly what the résumé contains (recorded measurements, Bitcoin-anchored entries, discrepancies, rings, agreements, uncounted records, resume_sha256, recompute recipe). It also explicitly contrasts with a score, which differentiates it from nenrin_trust_signal. An agent can tell this is a history aggregation, not a scoring or single-entry tool.

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 line 'A history, not a score' implies the tool should be used when a full conduct history is wanted rather than a trust score, but it never names an alternative tool or states explicit when/when-not conditions. There is no guidance on when to prefer this over nenrin_ledger_entry, nenrin_witness, or nenrin_trust_signal. The usage context is therefore implied rather than explicit.

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