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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. The word 'live' usefully signals a real-time (non-cached) snapshot, which is genuine behavioral context, but it says nothing about permissions, rate limits, or freshness guarantees for what is presumably a monitoring call.

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?

A single efficient sentence with the resource and its scope front-loaded and no filler. It is terse to the point of cryptic for readers unfamiliar with the layer names, but nothing is wasted.

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 an output schema present, return values need not be described, and with zero parameters the call surface is trivial. However, the absence of any usage guidance or annotation leaves a monitoring tool slightly under-specified for an agent deciding when to invoke it.

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 there is no parameter semantics to document. Baseline for a param-free tool is 4.

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 resource and scope: the live state of the Suite layers, and enumerates them (attest, agentpay, drift, skilllint). An agent knows this is a read/status tool rather than a verification or quoting tool. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings, keeping it just under a 5.

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?

No when-to-use context, no preconditions, and no mention of alternatives among the siblings (check_skill, quote_cost, trust_report, verify_work). The agent must infer usage purely from the name and one-line description.

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