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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations, the description adds meaningful behavioral commitments: the ledger is append-only, every returned field is tagged machine_attested, testimony, or unknown, and the tool 'never infers authorship, labor, personhood, reputation, or settlement.' This tells an agent exactly what it can and cannot expect from calls.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then usage modes, then important output semantics. Every sentence adds value and there is no redundant restating of the schema.

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 description is strong for a read-only tool with no output schema: it covers how to query single records, machine-attested subjects, and recent records, and it describes the attestation tagging pattern. The only notable omission is precise pagination semantics for 'after' and 'limit,' which are otherwise left to inference.

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?

With schema description coverage at only 40%, the description compensates by explaining the three valid parameter combinations and the semantics of record_id vs subject fields. However, it does not clarify the meaning of 'after' or 'limit' beyond their schema constraints, leaving a small gap for pagination behavior.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Read the append-only cross-surface edge ledger without taking a standing.' This clearly distinguishes inspect_edge from sibling write/action tools and from inspect_arc. The three query modes further refine 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 explicitly explains when to use each parameter combination: record_id alone, subject_kind plus subject_public_id, or neither. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions relative to sibling tools, but the 'without taking a standing' phrasing and read-only framing give clear usage context.

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