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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, which covers the safety profile. The description adds the specific semantic guarantee (exact settle success ≠ listing freshness) but does not disclose return format, failure behavior, or other side effects. With annotations in place, the added context is useful but not extensive.

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 concise, consisting of two sentences that front-load the core concept ('Free effects prover') and then provide a pointer and use case. Each sentence earns its place, though the cryptic wording reduces immediate comprehensibility. It is appropriately sized for a no-parameter tool.

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?

The tool has no output schema, so the description should explain what the tool returns or provides. The description mentions the endpoint and the honesty-check context but does not state what the agent will receive after invocation (e.g., a boolean, a proof, data). Given the low complexity (no params) and presence of annotations, it is somewhat complete but leaves a significant gap regarding the output.

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 schema is trivially covered (100%). With no parameters to describe, the baseline is 4, and the description does not need to add parameter-level detail. There is no ambiguity to resolve.

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 specific action ('prover') and resource ('effects', GET /v1/effects), but its meaning is obscured by domain jargon ('Settle≠discovery', 'Bazaar/catalog listing freshness'). It doesn't clearly state in plain terms what the tool does, making it difficult for an unfamiliar agent to understand. It partially distinguishes from siblings by focusing on effects, but the vague terminology limits clarity.

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 usage for 'CDP/Bazaar honesty checks on Session/Cert' but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over the many sibling tools or provide exclusions. The intended context is present but not articulated as direct guidance, so it remains at the 'implied usage' level rather than giving clear instructions.

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