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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It surfaces a non-obvious side effect—recording introspection to the ledger—and clarifies that it reports state rather than merely validating. It could add more about failure behavior or revocation semantics, but the core behavior is transparent.

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?

A single sentence conveys the core action, the possible states, and the side effect with no filler. Every clause earns its place and the main verb is front-loaded.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential behavior and side effect but leaves gaps: the exact response shape, error handling, and when to prefer this over sibling validation tools are not addressed.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds some meaning by calling the token a 'grant token seal' and associating it with introspection, but it does not specify the token's format, encoding, or how it should be supplied beyond the schema's required grant_token field.

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 uses a specific verb ('Validates'), a clear resource ('grant token seal'), and names concrete outcomes ('active/revoked/expired state') plus a side effect ('records introspection to the ledger'). It is clear and self-contained, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like mandate.verify-proof or broker.revoke-grant.

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 explains what the tool does but gives no guidance on when to use it versus alternatives. It does not mention when introspection is preferable to verify-proof, nor does it state prerequisites or exclusions.

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