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

Annotations already disclose readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true. The description adds important behavioral context by explaining that setting expected_tools_hash and a mismatch results in verdict 'deny', which is essential for understanding the tool's write-like effect despite no state mutation. However, it doesn't elaborate on how the pinning operation works or what the receipt contains, leaving some gaps.

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?

Single dense sentence covering purpose, return shape, and alternatives. No wasted words; key routing information is front-loaded and clearly structured.

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 two-parameter tool with an output schema and full annotation coverage, the description provides complete guidance: what it does, when to use it, what it returns, and which sibling to use for a related but distinct purpose. 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters thoroughly, including formats and constraints. The description mentions expected_tools_hash but adds no meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Query historical conformance observations, rug-pull drift events, and canonical SHA-256 tools/list policy hashes'), and explicitly differentiates itself from the sibling assay_preflight by naming what assay_preflight is for (pre-flight allow/deny gating). An agent can clearly distinguish this from the sibling tools.

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 two use cases ('audit historical ledger data or pin expected_tools_hash in mcp-lock.json') and names the alternative tool for the excluded case ('for pre-flight allow/deny gating use assay_preflight'). Clear routing guidance, though it doesn't cover all sibling tools.

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