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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds context on what data is returned (entry count, tree head, Merkle root, retired shards) and emphasizes its authoritative nature for verification checkpoints. It does not contradict 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?

The description is two concise sentences plus an example. It front-loads the purpose, then gives usage guidance, and ends with an example. Every sentence adds value 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?

For a simple read-only tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is thorough. It lists the output fields, explains the tool's authoritative role, provides a usage note, and includes an example. The annotations cover safety, so nothing essential is missing.

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 only parameter, 'stable', is fully described in the schema with a default value. The description does not add any extra meaning beyond the schema. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline of 3 applies. The example call is helpful but does not deepen parameter semantics.

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 states the tool's function: reporting the current state of the Sigstore Rekor transparency log (entry count, signed tree head, Merkle root, retired shards). It is specific about the resource and the data returned, and it distinguishes itself from the sibling rekor_entry_by_index by noting its use as a precursor for that 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 description explicitly instructs to use this tool before rekor_entry_by_index and explains why (the highest valid index is tree_size - 1). This provides a clear when-to-use directive and an alternative. It also notes 'Keyless,' which implies no authentication is needed.

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