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

The description adds substantial behavioral nuance beyond the annotations: it warns that the significance grade is Lexiara's assertion rather than the publisher's, that 'major' should be treated as a prompt to read the instrument rather than a finding, and that via-transposition links are unreviewed evidence. This is exactly the kind of hidden-behavior disclosure that helps an agent use results correctly, and there is no contradiction with the readOnly/idempotent 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 long but every clause earns its place: purpose, grade definitions, caveat about the grade's authority, and the reach explanation are all densely packed without filler. The core purpose is front-loaded in the first phrase 'The digest: every change...', and the remainder is necessary semantic detail.

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 no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining what the tool returns; it does so by describing each development's significance grade, reasoning, and reach, and by giving the possible values and their interpretation. For a read-only digest tool with safe annotations, this is sufficient for an agent to call it and interpret the response correctly.

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 already describes all three parameters (limit, since, minSignificance), so coverage is 100% and the baseline is 3. The description adds extra value by defining the meaning of 'major', 'minor', and 'housekeeping', which directly enriches understanding of minSignificance, and it also explains the reach values. It does not add new detail for limit or since, but the schema already handles those adequately.

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 identifies the resource ('followed law') and the action ('every change the corpus observed... each with a significance grade'), which is specific and informative. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like recent_changes, but the focused scope on followed law with grading is enough for an agent to understand what the tool does.

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 implies when to use the tool: when the agent needs a digest of changes on law the user follows, including the significance and reasoning. It explains the meaning of the significance levels and reach, providing clear context. It does not explicitly state exclusions or compare with alternative siblings, but the usage context is clear.

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