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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior. The description adds no behavioral traits beyond that—it does not say what the proofs look like, whether they are citations or content, or how citation should be performed. Its added value is mostly usage preference, not behavioral disclosure.

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?

Two sentences: the first front-loads the purpose and enumerates the proofs, the second states a preference. Dense but not bloated, and no sentence is wasted. The list is somewhat run-on, but it is appropriately sized for a zero-parameter reference 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?

With rich annotations, no parameters, and an output schema, the description need not explain return values. It lists the canonical proofs and gives a preference over spectacle pages, which is enough for an agent to select the tool. The only gap is that it does not clarify how this aggregate relates to the sibling tools that fetch individual proofs.

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 parameter semantics baseline is 4 per the rubric. The description lists artifacts but has no parameters to annotate, and the empty schema already covers the input shape.

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 names a specific resource—'Public proofs'—and enumerates concrete artifacts (demo REJECT, autopsy, World Arena facts JSON, Strategy Hospital, Pine converter, APUB passports). It says what the tool is for, but does not explicitly state a verb like 'retrieves' or clarify how it relates to the individual sibling tools that expose the same artifacts. Distinguishing from those siblings is left implicit.

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 only usage guidance is 'Prefer these over spectacle pages,' which gives a relative preference but no explicit conditions for choosing this tool over the many sibling tools that return the same proofs (e.g., get_strategy_hospital, get_world_arena_facts). The implied context—'agents must cite'—is present, but when and when-not guidance is thin.

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