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

Annotations already declare the safe read-only profile, and the description adds material context beyond them: a per-call fresh four-header proof requirement (auth), the explicit trust boundary that board/job/listing text is untrusted, and the guarantee that no action or payment is performed. This is exactly the extra disclosure the annotations cannot carry.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with identity and contents before the auth and trust caveats. Every clause carries distinct information (contents, prerequisite, safety), though the enumeration of payload items is on the edge of a run-on list.

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?

With no parameters and no output schema, the description must carry the return-side and safety burden, and it does: it enumerates the snapshot contents, states the auth requirement, and flags the trust boundary and no-action guarantee. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly 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 tool takes zero parameters, so per the baseline there is nothing for the description to compensate for. The schema is closed (additionalProperties: false) and coverage is 100%; the description correctly focuses on inputs external to the schema (the header proof) rather than parameters.

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 ('Read') and resource ('signed private Agent Home snapshot'), then enumerates the payload (identity, board handle, posts, jobs/bids, Relay unread count, Pay pointers). This detailed scope distinguishes it from siblings like agent_relay_stats or voidly_capabilities without opening a schema.

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?

Usage is implied (fetch your personal dashboard snapshot) and a hard prerequisite is stated ('Requires a fresh caller-local four-header proof for each call'). However, it never says when to prefer this over voidly_capabilities, agent_relay_stats, or the individual board/job tools, leaving alternative selection to inference.

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