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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true. The description adds value by explaining that an empty log returns 0 with no fabricated activity, and provides context about the nature of recorded statements. No contradiction with annotations.

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 concise at 3-4 sentences with front-loaded purpose. Every sentence provides value, though the caveat statement could be slightly shorter. No redundant 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?

The tool has 5 parameters, no output schema, and read-only annotations. The description covers filter options, emptiness behavior, and data limitations, but lacks details on limit behavior and return format, which are necessary for complete understanding.

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?

Schema coverage is 40% (only kind and since have descriptions). The description adds that meter_id, agent_id, kind, and since are filters, but does not explain the limit parameter fully. It provides some additional meaning but does not fully compensate for low schema coverage.

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 verb 'Query' and the resource 'SaSame's append-only audit log', listing specific data types. It is clear but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, though the unique audit log focus makes it distinct.

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 description gives usage context ('Use to reconstruct what SaSame recorded') and includes caveats about party labels and independent proof. However, it does not specify when not to use the tool or mention alternative tools.

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