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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds only the cryptic 'Reading a proof opens no seal,' which is consistent but opaque and does not meaningfully extend the behavioral picture beyond what annotations provide.

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 short but front-loads a dense, jargon-heavy list ('demo REJECT, +172/−37 autopsy...') rather than a clear statement of what the tool returns. The two directives at the end are concise, but the overall structure prioritizes flavor over usable information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. Still, with roughly forty sibling tools—several of which directly overlap with the listed artifacts—the description does not give enough routing context to tell an agent when this aggregator is preferable to the individual tools.

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 the baseline is 4. No parameter semantics are needed, and the description correctly does not introduce 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?

The description indicates the tool returns 'public proofs' and enumerates artifacts such as World Arena facts, Strategy Hospital, Pine converter, and Arena Passports. However, 'proof' is never defined and the enumeration overlaps heavily with dedicated sibling tools, so an agent cannot form a precise picture of what this tool uniquely returns.

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?

It gives a directive—'agents must cite before praising anything' and 'Prefer these over spectacle pages'—which implies usage context. But it names no sibling alternative explicitly and gives no concrete conditions or exclusions for when to call this versus get_world_arena_facts, get_strategy_hospital, or get_arena_passport.

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