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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavioral context by clarifying that the tool compares settle success against listing freshness and references the specific GET /v1/effects endpoint. No contradiction with 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 tightly packed sentences. It front-loads the core semantic contrast, then gives the endpoint and intended use case. Every clause adds information and there is 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 zero-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description gives endpoint and domain context but does not state what a successful invocation returns or how the 'proof' is presented. The cryptic domain jargon is understandable to an informed agent but leaves some ambiguity.

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 has zero parameters and the input schema is empty, so the description carries no parameter burden. The pointer to GET /v1/effects and the focus on exactness versus freshness are sufficient context for a parameterless invocation.

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 identifies a concrete purpose: proving that exact settle success differs from Bazaar/catalog listing freshness, and points to GET /v1/effects. It is more specific than a tautology and gives a clear domain role, though it does not use a crisp action verb like 'verify' or 'check'.

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 implies when to use the tool: for CDP/Bazaar honesty checks on Session/Cert, especially when settle success versus discovery freshness matters. It does not name alternatives or state when not to use it, so usage guidance is present but not explicit.

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