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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure, but it only names status fields. It does not state whether the call is read-only, what permissions are required, or whether it has side effects. The 'Status' label weakly implies a read, but no explicit behavioral trait is provided.

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?

Extremely short and front-loaded with 'Status:', but the rest is a bare colon-separated list with no connective tissue. It avoids waste yet sacrifices clarity for brevity.

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-param tool with no output schema, the description is the only source for return content, and it lists five fields. However, it leaves the tool's overall purpose and behavioral context unexplained, so an agent cannot confidently decide whether or how to use it against siblings.

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?

Zero parameters, so baseline is 4 per rubric. The description adds nothing parameter-related, but there are no parameters to explain.

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 labels the output as 'Status' and lists five fields, but never states a verb or resource that defines the tool's action. It does not distinguish itself from sibling status-like tools such as haven_verify or haven_canon_read.

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 guidance, no alternatives, no prerequisites are given. The list of status fields weakly implies a read operation, but an agent must guess when this beacon is appropriate over siblings like haven_verify.

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