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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bars is lowered. The description adds useful context beyond that: no authentication required, and the specific content domains it governs (treasury address, sanctioned money-in paths, no official token). It does not describe return format, but the annotation set covers most behavioral concerns.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core claim, followed by the usage trigger and the auth note. Nothing is redundant.

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 zero-parameter read-only reference tool, this is nearly complete: it tells the agent what the tool contains, when to consult it, and that no auth is needed. The only minor gap is that it does not hint at the shape or size of the returned facts, though with no output schema that is a small omission.

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There are no arguments to document, and the description correctly does not invent any.

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?

Names a specific resource (canonical source of truth covering treasury address, money-in paths, no official token) with a clear purpose, and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like proposal or constitution_versions by framing itself as the reference for verifying 'official' claims.

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?

Explicitly states when to use it: 'Check any Commonhold official X claim against this.' That is a direct, actionable trigger condition, and the no-auth note removes a common adoption blocker.

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