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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool provides an audit trail of 'who lost authority when' and cites a rule about transparency. This implies the tool is read-only and trustworthy. However, it does not explicitly state permissions or side effects.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the main purpose. The parenthetical adds flavor but is not essential. Overall, it is concise and clear without wasted words.

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 tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context about what the tool returns. It does not describe the format of the output (e.g., list, details), but for a simple audit trail tool, the description is adequate.

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 input schema has no parameters, so the description does not need to explain parameters. It adds meaning by defining the content of the tool's output (revocations, audit trail). Since there are zero parameters, the baseline is 4, and the description adequately compensates.

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 clearly states the tool returns 'revocations of dealing codes and mandates' as an audit trail. It specifies the resource (dealing codes and mandates) and the action (published revocations). The parenthetical 'carrier rule 5: nothing is hidden' adds context. It distinguishes from sibling 'mandates' which likely shows current mandates.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. However, the description implies it is for checking published revocations. The sibling tool 'mandates' suggests an alternative, but no direct comparison is made.

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